TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 184

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CERTAIN ALLEGED NON-PARTY CO-CONSPIRATORS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

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

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

13

This Order Relates to:

14

The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and
through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee v.
AU Optronics, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5781 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AS TO CERTAIN
ALLEGED NON-PARTY COCONSPIRATORS

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-6241 SI
Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-3763 SI

Re: Dkt. 9214, 9262

MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-829 SI
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-2225 SI
Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5765 SI
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-3205 SI

25
26

Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration of this Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying

27

in Part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Certain Alleged Non-Party Co-

28

Conspirators, arguing that there was a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts.” Dkt.

1

9214 at 2:16. Plaintiffs contend that the Court failed to consider evidence presented in plaintiffs’

2

opposition brief regarding conspiratorial communications between IBM U.S. and Hitachi or Sharp

3

regarding Dell during the 2001-2002 time frame. Defendants oppose reconsideration, arguing that the

4

Court did consider that evidence and specifically addressed that evidence in the order, and that plaintiffs

5

have failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.
The Court has reviewed the original summary judgment briefing as well as the reconsideration

7

papers, and concludes that reconsideration is not warranted. As defendants note, the Court specifically

8

referenced the Dell-related bilateral communications in the September 4, 2014 order. Dkt. 9206 at 5:5-

9

9, 5:19-20. Further, as the Court noted in the September 4, 2014 order, plaintiffs do not claim damages

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

based on purchases from Dell. Neither plaintiffs’ summary judgment opposition nor the reconsideration

11

motion addresses how the evidence regarding Dell raises a triable issue of fact regarding the conspiracy

12

alleged in plaintiffs’ complaints or claims for damages. Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the

13

September 4, 2014 order granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims with regard to IBM U.S., and

14

DENIES the motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 9214.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 23, 2015

19

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2