Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co., Civ. A. No. 74-2451
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Glenview, Ill., for Zenith Radio Corporation, plaintiff |
| Citation | 505 F. Supp. 1190 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | 74-3247. MDL 189.,Civ. A. No. 74-2451 |
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.
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.
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
505 F. Supp. 12084. 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
...505 F. Supp. 1209*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 Diary, DSS 56-57 ........................................ 1285 VIII. JFTC Testimony, DSS 58-74 ............................................ 1286 A. Introduction ...................................................... 1286 B. Authentication .................................................... 1287 C. Admissibility as Former Testimony - Rule 804(b)(1) ................ 1288 1. Unavailability ................................................. 1288 2. Similarity of
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. Peck Iron and Metal Co., Inc., Complaint No. C80-0253-M
...Evidence 1008; Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 586 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir.1978); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1219 (E.Pa.1980). As to the question of the existence of a prima facie showing, all that is required is substantial evidence from which t......
-
U.S. v. Pelullo, No. 91-1792
...evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.' Id. (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1236 (E.D.Pa.1980)) (emphasis However, none of these authorities holds that the court may admit into evidence under the business exception ......
-
Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co., Nos. 82-2176
...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, electing instead to ......
-
Corcoran v. McCabe (In re McCabe), BANKRUPTCY NO. 13-19715
...The document was not self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1226–27 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. In re Japanese Elec. Prod. Antitrust Litig. , 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd ......
-
Fox v. Peck Iron and Metal Co., Inc., Complaint No. C80-0253-M
...Evidence 1008; Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 586 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir.1978); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1219 (E.Pa.1980). As to the question of the existence of a prima facie showing, all that is required is substantial evidence from which t......
-
U.S. v. Pelullo, No. 91-1792
...evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.' Id. (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1236 (E.D.Pa.1980)) (emphasis However, none of these authorities holds that the court may admit into evidence under the business exception ......
-
Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co., Nos. 82-2176
...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, electing instead to ......
-
Corcoran v. McCabe (In re McCabe), BANKRUPTCY NO. 13-19715
...The document was not self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 505 F.Supp. 1190, 1226–27 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. In re Japanese Elec. Prod. Antitrust Litig. , 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd ......