Dell Inc. et al v. Sharp Corporation et al

Filing 460

ORDER DENYING PARTIES' MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 7222 7223 7226 7271 7320 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
/

Case No. C 10-1064 SI

11
12
13

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827

This Order Relates to:

ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ MOTIONS
TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY

Dell Inc. et al. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., C 10-1064 SI

14
15
16

/

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony are scheduled for a hearing on January 11,
2013. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that these matters are appropriate for
resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing on these motions. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court DENIES the motions. Docket Nos. 7222, 7223, 7225, 7226, 7271 & 7320.
Dell seeks to exclude certain testimony by HannStar’s experts Dennis Carlton and Edward
Snyder, and HannStar seeks to exclude testimony by Dell’s expert Mohan Rao. The Court concludes
that the parties’ arguments largely go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the proposed
testimony. Dell challenges both defense experts’ usage of non-Dell data in calculating overcharges to
Dell and Dell’s damages, while HannStar challenges Dr. Rao’s usage of a subset of Dell’s purchase data
in calculating Dell’s damages. The Court finds that the experts’ decisions about what data to use can
be the subject of cross-examination, but it does not render the experts’ models unreliable.

Dell also seeks to exclude Dr. Carlton’s opinions about the effects of the alleged cartel on sales

2

of monitor panels to Dell. Dr. Carlton has stated that an overcharge could not be reliably measured for

3

monitors for a variety of reasons, and that his econometric model for notebook panels is a reasonable

4

proxy for monitor panels. Dell can challenge these determinations through cross-examination and

5

through the testimony of Dr. Rao, who has prepared his own econometric models for monitors and

6

notebook panels. Dell also contends that Dr. Snyder “arbitrarily” adopts Dr. Carlton’s overcharges

7

estimate, and that in doing so Dr. Snyder “improperly vouches” for Dr. Carlton. An expert is permitted

8

to rely on the opinion of another expert. However, at trial Dell may raise specific objections to specific

9

questions if Dell becomes concerned that Dr. Snyder is improperly vouching for Dr. Carlton’s opinions.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

In addition, HannStar contends that Dr. Rao incorrectly calculated Dell’s damages by only

11

calculating damages for 2001-2004, and that Dr. Rao should have included undercharges from 2005-

12

2006 because the conspiracy is alleged to have ended in 2006. The Court previously rejected this

13

argument in the Order Denying Defendants’ Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Limit Dell’s

14

Damages Claim to Net Overcharges. Docket No. 6996. As the Court stated in that order, “To the extent

15

defendants believe that Dr. Rao used the wrong end date for his regression analysis, defendants can

16

challenge that determination through cross-examination and the testimony of their own economic expert,

17

Dr. Carlton.” Id. at 2:18-20. Finally, HannStar seeks to prevent Dr. Rao from testifying about matters

18

reserved to the jury, such as whether the evidence shows the existence of the conspiracy. The Court

19

denies this aspect of HannStar’s motion without prejudice to raising specific objections to specific

20

questions at trial.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: January 8, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2