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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?