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

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

Document Cited authorities 114 Cited in 165 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date29 September 1980
Docket Number74-3247. MDL 189.,Civ. A. No. 74-2451
Citation505 F. Supp. 1190
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. 1190

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.

September 29, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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 and Melco Sales, Inc.

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, Harry M. Davidow, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Stuart Peim, Lenore Liberman, Gayle E. Hanlon, 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., Hunt, Kerr, Bloom & Hitchner by Charles J. Bloom, 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, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation, defendants.

Whitman & Ransom by Patrick H. Sullivan, Dugald C. Brown, James S. Morris, Kevin R. Keating, Michael S. Press, New York City, Hunt, Kerr, Bloom & Hitchner by Charles J. Bloom, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sanyo Elec., Inc., Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., Sanyo Elec. Trading Co., Ltd., and Sanyo Manufacturing Corporation, 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. 

                                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS                      Page
                 I.  Preliminary Statement .................................................. 1209
                II.  Rulings on Contested Legal Issues Concerning Interpretation of the
                     Federal Rules of Evidence .............................................. 1218
                     A. Authentication ...................................................... 1218
                        1. The Standard for a Preliminary Ruling on Authentication Under
                           Rule 104; Will Inadmissible Evidence Suffice? .................... 1218
                        2. The Notion of Authentication and the Scope of Rule 901(a); is
                           Authenticity More than Mere Genuineness? ......................... 1220
                        3. Methods of Authentication ........................................ 1222
                           a. Source of the Document                                          1223
                           b. Characteristics of the Document Itself                          1224
                           c. Testimony and Interrogatory Answers                             1225
                           d. Similarity to Other Authenticated Documents                     1226
                           e. Age of the Document                                             1226
                        4. Self-Authentication Under Rule 902 ............................... 1226
                        5. "Best Evidence" Rule ............................................. 1227
                     B. Qualification as a Business Record Under Rule 803(6) ................ 1228
                        1. The Impact of Rule 104(a); Will Inadmissible Evidence Suffice?     1229
                        2. The Requirement that the Records be Kept in the Course of a
                           Regularly Conducted Business Activity and that it was the
                           Regular Practice of that Business Activity to Make the Record      1231
                        3. The Requirement of Qualification by a Custodian or Other
                           Qualified Witness ................................................ 1233
                
                        4. The Import of Rule 33(c) Production .............................. 1236
                        5. The Personal Knowledge and Trustworthiness Requirements .......... 1237
                     C. Qualification as Admissions by Party - Opponent under Rules 801
                        801(d)(2)(B), (C) and (D) ........................................... 1238
                        1. "Non-Hearsay" - The Treatment of Admissions in the F.R.E. ........ 1239
                        2. An Admission Must be an Assertion ................................ 1240
                        3. Adoptive Admissions .............................................. 1243
                        4. Authorized Statements ............................................ 1245
                        5. Vicarious Admissions ............................................. 1246
                        6. Admissions of a Subsidiary Corporation Offered Against the
                           Parent Corporation ............................................... 1247
                     D. 804(b)(1) Former Testimony .......................................... 1248
                        1. Unavailability ................................................... 1248
                           a. Introduction                                                    1248
                           b. Inability to Procure Attendance Under Rule 804(a)(5)            1249
                        2. Similarity of Motive ............................................. 1251
                        3. The Meaning of "Predecessor in Interest" ......................... 1252
                     E. Statements Against Interest Under Rule 804(b)(3) .................... 1255
                        1. Unavailability ................................................... 1256
                           a. Inability to Procure Testimony Under Rule 804(a)(5)             1256
                           b. Lack of Memory Under Rule 804(a)(3)                             1256
                        2. Statement Against Interest — The Requirements of Rule 804
                           (b)(3) ........................................................... 1256
                     F. The Residual Hearsay Exceptions: Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5) ........ 1261
                        1. Introduction ..................................................... 1261
                        2. The "Near-Miss" Problem .......................................... 1262
                        3. The Requirement of Making Reasonable Efforts to Procure
                           Other Evidence ................................................... 1264
                        4. Trustworthiness .................................................. 1265
                     G. The Problem of Internal Hearsay ..................................... 1265
                        1. Hearsay Within Hearsay ........................................... 1265
                        2. Hearsay Within Admissions ........................................ 1266
                III. The Yajima Diaries - DSS 48-50 ......................................... 1267
                     A. Introduction ........................................................ 1267
                     B. Plaintiffs' Foundation for Authentication and Admissibility Under
                        One of the Exceptions to the Hearsay Rules .......................... 1268
                     C. Defendants' Response ................................................ 1268
                     D. Authentication (F.R.E. 901) ......................................... 1270
                     E. Business Record Status (F.R.E. 803(6)) .............................. 1270
                        1. The Regular Practice Requirement ................................. 1270
                        2. Requirement of Firsthand Knowledge and Contemporaneity ........... 1273
                        3. The Trustworthiness Proviso ...................................... 1273
                     F. Admissions of a Party Opponent ...................................... 1273
                     G. Statements Against Interest ......................................... 1275
                     H. The Residual Hearsay Exceptions ..................................... 1276
                     I. Internal Hearsay (Rule 805) ......................................... 1276
                *
IV.  The Yamada Diary, DSS 51 ............................................. 1277
                   V.  The Yamamato Diaries, DSS 52-54 ...................................... 1280
                  VI.  The Okuma Diary, DSS 55 .............................................. 1283
                 VII.  The Tokizane
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Church of Scientology of California v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • September 24, 1984
    ...be said to be written assertions within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 801(a). Petitioner relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 505 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1980), which held that certain diaries kept by Japanese businessmen were not admissible because they were u......
  • Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 10, 1983
    ...of these ambiguities, a witness should have been called to testify as to such matters. See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1242 (E.D.Pa.1980). We conclude, however, that CCOM waived its objection by failing to object during opening argument......
  • Lacy v. CSX Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1999
    ...See In Re Japanese Electronic Prod. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 288 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1237 (E.D.Pa.1980)), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106......
  • Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 5, 1983
    ...citing United States v. Goichman, 547 F.2d 778, 784 (3d Cir.1976) , referred to the necessity for "substantial" admissible evidence. 505 F.Supp. at 1219-20. The reference to "substantial" evidence in Goichman, however, as the context discloses, was not intended to require anything more tha......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
38 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...(3) the potential penalties or financial stakes, and (4) the number of issues and parties.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1252 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (footnotes omitted), aff’d in part, rev’d in part , 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 475 U.S. 5......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part IV - Demonstrative Evidence
    • July 31, 2015
    ...New York, 2014), §44.300 Zeller v. Mayson, 168 Md. 663, 179 A. 179 (1935), §33.200 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, (E.D. Pa. 1980), §§3.400, 23.404, 43.100 Zeolla v. Kimche , 52 A.D.3d 277, 859 N.Y.S.2d 184 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2008), §30.300 Zeus Enterpri......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part IV - Demonstrative Evidence
    • July 31, 2014
    ...(N.D. Iowa, 2004), §24.203 Zeller v. Mayson, 168 Md. 663, 179 A. 179 (1935), §33.200 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, (E.D. Pa. 1980), §§3.400, 23.404, 43.100 Zeolla v. Kimche , 52 A.D.3d 277, 859 N.Y.S.2d 184 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2008), §30.300 Zeus Enterp......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...(D.D.C. 2003), 67 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969), 189 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1190 (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), 41, 44 Zenith R......
    • 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