Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co.

Document Cited authorities 59 Cited in 144 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date07 August 1980
Docket Number74-3247. MDL 189.,Civ. A. No. 74-2451
Citation505 F. Supp. 1125
PartiesZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

505 F. Supp. 1125

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Civ. A. Nos. 74-2451, 74-3247. MDL 189.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

August 7, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, by Edwin P. Rome, William H. Roberts, John Hardin Young, Arnold I. Kalman, Kathleen H. Larkin, Norman E. Greenspan, Lawrence S. Bauman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Zenith Radio Corporation and National Union Electric Corporation, plaintiffs.

Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Glenview, Ill., for Zenith Radio Corporation, plaintiff.

Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander by Donald J. Zoeller, John P. Hederman, Thomas P. Lynch, Howard C. Crystal, Robert A. Jaffe, Shelly B. O'Neill, Mark K. Neville, Jr., New York City, Drinker, Biddle & Reath by Patrick T. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for Tokyo Shibaura Elec. Co., Ltd. and Toshiba America, Inc., defendants; defense coordinating counsel.

Duane, Morris & Heckscher by Henry T. Reath, Terry R. Broderick, Philadelphia, Pa., Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell by John T. Dolan, Arnold B. Calmann, Newark, N.J., Baker & McKenzie by Hoken S. Seki, Thomas E. Johnson, Chicago, Ill., for Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.

Reid & Priest by Charles F. Schirmeister, Robert J. Lynch, New York City, L. Peter Farkas, Washington, D.C., for Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsubishi International Corporation, defendants.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges by Ira M. Millstein, A. Paul Victor, Joel B. Harris, Kevin P. Hughes, Robert K. Hood, H. Adam Prussin, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Stuart Peim, Lenore Liberman, Gayle E. Hanlon, Alan Rothstein, Makoto Matsuo, New York City, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius by Raymond T. Cullen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Inc., Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, Matsushita Electronics Corp., Matsushita Elec. Trading Co., and Quasar Electronics Corp., defendants.

Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz by Carl W. Schwarz, Michael E. Friedlander, William H. Barrett, Stephen P. Murphy, William B. T. Mock, Jr.; Tanaka, Walders & Ritger by Lawrence R. Walders, B. Jenkins Middleton, Washington, D.C., Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz by Robert Conrad, Philadelphia, Pa., for Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Sales Corporation of America, and Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha, defendants.

Wender, Murase & White by Peter J. Gartland, Gene Yukio Matsuo, Peter A. Dankin, Lance Gotthoffer, New York City, for Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation, defendants.

Whitman & Ransom by Patrick H. Sullivan, Dugald C. Brown, Kevin R. Keating, Michael S. Press, New York City, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz by Charles J. Bloom, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sanyo Elec., Inc., Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., and Sanyo Elec. Trading Co., Ltd., defendants.

Arnstein, Gluck, Weitzenfeld & Minow by Louis A. Lehr, Jr., Stanley M. Lipnick, John L. Ropiequet, Chicago, Ill., for Sears, Roebuck & Co., defendant.

Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Lewis & Cohen by Asa D. Sokolow, Renee J. Roberts, Marc Rowin, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler by Joshua F. Greenberg, New York City, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen by Franklin Poul, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sony Corp. and Sony Corp. of America, defendants.

Kirkland & Ellis by Thomas P. Coffey, E. Houston Harsha, Karl F. Nygren, Chicago, Ill., for Motorola, Inc., defendant.

EDWARD R. BECKER, District Judge.

OPINION (Pretrial Order No. 283)

(Admissibility of Public Records and Reports) 

                                                      CONTENTS
                     I. Preliminary Statement ................................................... 1136
                    II. Rule 803(8) - Its Scope and Its Requisites .............................. 1143
                        A. Matters Admissible Under 803(8)(C) ................................... 1143
                        B. The Trustworthiness Proviso .......................................... 1146
                   III. The 1921 Antidumping Act Material ....................................... 1150
                        A. Introduction ......................................................... 1150
                        B. The 1921 Act Proceedings ............................................. 1151
                        C. The Hearsay Objection - Are the Exceptions Satisfied ................. 1155
                           1. Introduction ...................................................... 1155
                           2. The LTFV Findings ................................................. 1155
                           3. The Injury Finding ................................................ 1157
                           4. The Dumping Finding ............................................... 1157
                           5. The CF 29's ....................................................... 1157
                        D. The Relevancy Objections ............................................. 1158
                           1. The LTFV Finding .................................................. 1158
                           2. The Injury Finding ................................................ 1160
                           3. The Dumping Finding ............................................... 1160
                
                        E. Exclusion of Evidence Under Rule 403 ................................. 1160
                           1. Danger of Unfair Prejudice ........................................ 1160
                           2. Confusion of the Issues and Misleading the Jury ................... 1161
                           3. Considerations of Undue Delay and Waste of Time ................... 1161
                           4. Needless Presentation of Cumulative Evidence ...................... 1161
                    IV. Findings Under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of
                        1974 .................................................................... 1162
                        A. Introduction; Overview of Trade Act Proceedings ...................... 1162
                        B. The Escape Clause Proceedings in Question ............................ 1164
                        C. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Proceedings .......................... 1165
                        D. Statistical Data ..................................................... 1165
                        E. The Hearsay Objection ................................................ 1165
                           1. Escape Clause Proceedings ......................................... 1165
                              a. Did the Commission Make 803(8)(C) Findings ..................... 1165
                              b. Trustworthiness ................................................ 1166
                           2. Trade Adjustment Assistance Proceedings ........................... 1168
                              a. Were 803(8)(C) Findings Made ................................... 1168
                              b. Trustworthiness ................................................ 1169
                        F. The Relevancy Objection .............................................. 1170
                           1. The Escape Clause Proceedings ..................................... 1170
                           2. Trade Adjustment Assistance Proceedings ........................... 1171
                        G. Exclusion of Evidence Under Rule 403 ................................. 1172
                        H. Miscellaneous Documents .............................................. 1172
                     V. The Records and Findings of the Japanese Fair Trade Commission
                        (JFTC) .................................................................. 1173
                        A. Nature of the Proceedings before the JFTC ............................ 1173
                        B. The JFTC Documents at Issue .......................................... 1176
                           1. The Market Stabilization Case ..................................... 1176
                           2. The Matsushita Resale Price Maintenance Case ...................... 1176
                        C. The Evidentiary Contentions .......................................... 1178
                           1. Introduction ...................................................... 1178
                           2. The Hearsay Question: Admissibility Under 803(8)(C) ............... 1178
                              a. Findings ....................................................... 1179
                              b. Trustworthiness ................................................ 1180
                           3. F.R.E. 408, 410, and ? 5(a) of the Clayton Act .................... 1181
                           4. Other Relevancy Objections ........................................ 1184
                    VI. Admissibility of Judge Higginbotham's Findings of Fact .................. 1184
                   VII. Materials from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
                        and the United Nations .................................................. 1186
                        A. Introduction ......................................................... 1186
                        B. Are the OECD and the United Nations Public Offices or Agencies
                           Under 803(8) ......................................................... 1187
                        C. Trustworthiness ...................................................... 1187
                
                  VIII. Conclusion .............................................................. 1188
                  Appendix ...................................................................... 1189
I. Preliminary Statement

This is the first of several opinions that will address the myriad issues raised during the course of a lengthy pretrial evidentiary hearing in this antitrust case, the anatomy and scope of which have been described elsewhere.1 The hearing, which commenced on June 16, 1980, and terminated on July 18, 1980, has had a two-fold purpose. First, it has enabled us to rule upon the admissibility of a number of documents that play a critical role in plaintiffs' case so that we will know whether to consider them in ruling upon defendants' motions for summary judgment, particularly their motions addressed to plaintiffs' conspiracy claims.2 Second, the hearings were in limine, and have provided the forum for a pretrial ruling on the question whether plaintiffs have come forward with a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Sanchez-Llamas v. Bustillo, Nos. 04–10566
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 28 June 2006
    ...Africa/Namibia Trade & Cultural Council v. Department of State, 90 F.R.D. 695, 696, n. 2 (DC 1981); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1125, 1187 (E.D.Pa.1980); Rodriguez Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 505 F.Supp. 787, 797 (Kan.1980); In re AlienChildren Ed. Litigation,......
  • Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 September 1984
    ... ... , on the brief), for appellee, Cone Mills Corp ...         Argued before MURPHY, ... 1387 (N.D.Ill.1981); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electrical ... Page ... ...
  • Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 5 December 1983
    ...and as to each made a ruling on authenticity or admissibility under one or more of the Federal Evidence Rules, and on relevancy. See 505 F.Supp. at 1138-39. Some evidence was held to be admissible, and thus for purposes of summary judgment must be taken into account. That evidence will be r......
  • Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 29 September 1980
    ...1161. The nature and scope of the evidentiary hearing has been described in the first opinion in the current series, filed on August 7, 1980, 505 F.Supp. 1125.1 This opinion will consider admissibility of three major groups of documents: (1) materials seized by the Japanese Fair Trade Commi......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • 1 January 2016
    ...to offer expert opinion, the extent to which the facts or data upon which the opinion is based are of a type reasonably relied upon. 505 F. Supp. 1125, 1147 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds , 475 U.S. 574 (1986). See also In ......
  • Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook. Second Edition
    • 28 June 2002
    ...that “others no doubt could be added.” (1) To wit, the district court in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Indus. Co. , 505 F. Supp. 1125 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff’d in part, rev’d in part , 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds , 475 U.S. 574 (1986), proposed the followi......
  • Relevance
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • 1 January 2016
    ...factual determinations contained therein might otherwise be admissible. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1125, 1181-82 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (admitting evidence contained within foreign report), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom . In re Japanese Elec. P......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • 1 January 2016
    ...F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds , 475 U.S. 574 (1986), 41, 44 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1125 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. In re Japanese Elec. Products Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev’d ......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT