Best Buy Co., Inc. et al v. AU Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 515

ORDER RE BEST BUY'S TRIAL BRIEF RE (1) FRE 1006 SUMMARY WITNESS AND (2) DR. McCLAVE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/8/2013)

Best Buy Co., Inc. et al v. AU Optronics Corp. et al

Doc. 515

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
/

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

This Order Relates to:

ORDER RE BEST BUY’S TRIAL BRIEF
RE (1) FRE 1006 SUMMARY WITNESS
AND (2) DR. McCLAVE

11
12
13
14
15

Best Buy v. AU Optronics Corp. et al.,
Case No. 10-CV-4572,
Best Buy v. Toshiba Corp. et al.,
Case No. 12-CV-4114
/

16
17

The parties have filed a number of trial briefs addressing Best Buy’s intent to call, pursuant to

18

FRE 1006, a summary witness to summarize records related to (1) guilty pleas and judgments and (2)

19

corporate ownership and relationships. The parties have also filed briefs regarding Best Buy’s motion

20

to preclude defendants from calling Dr. McClave at trial and to preclude any argument or testimony

21

regarding Dr. McClave. Having considered the parties’ papers on these issues, the Court orders as

22

follows:

23
24

I.

Best Buy’s Trial Brief re FRE 1006 Summary Witness

25

A.

26

Best Buy seeks to call a summary witness, Daniel Gill, to summarize voluminous records of

27

guilty pleas and related judgments and sentencing memoranda. Those documents are identified in

28

Exhibit A of Best Buy’s brief, Docket No. 8389. Best Buy also moves for admission of the records Mr.

Guilty Pleas and Judgments

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Gill will summarize. HannStar contends that only judgments are admissible under FRE 803(22), that

2

the proposed summary will prejudice HannStar, and that there is no basis or need for a summary

3

witness. Toshiba does not oppose Best Buy’s request for a summary witness as to evidence of the guilty

4

pleas and related documents, but requests that the time spent by Best Buy in introducing this evidence

5

be charged to Best Buy.
The Court OVERRULES HannStar’s objections. The Court concludes that the documents are

7

admissible pursuant to FRE 803(22), and that Best Buy has shown that the requirements of FRE 1006

8

are met. The Court’s ruling is without prejudice to HannStar raising specific objections that wording

9

in the summary chart is not neutral or that Mr. Gill is improperly interpreting or characterizing the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

evidence. The time spent on Mr. Gill’s direct testimony will be charged to Best Buy, and his testimony

11

on cross will be charged to defendants.

12
13

B.

14

Best Buy also seeks to have Mr. Gill summarize voluminous records establishing the corporate

15

relationships for Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, Philips, Panasonic and NEC, and to admit the underlying

16

records. The Court concludes that the documents are admissible pursuant to FRE 803(6) and FRE

17

902(12), and that Best Buy has shown that the requirements of FRE 1006 are met. Accordingly, the

18

Court GRANTS this request, subject to the Court’s rulings on specific objections made by defendants,

19

addressed below.1 The time spent on Mr. Gill’s direct testimony will be charged to Best Buy, and his

20

testimony on cross will be charged to defendants.

Corporate Relationship Documents

21
22

1.

23
24
25

NEC Press Releases, Sharp’s 100 Anniversary Annual Report, and Joint
Venture Agreements

The Court overrules HannStar’s objections to the presentation and admission of these documents.
Best Buy has submitted custodian of records declarations for these documents establishing that they are

26
27
1

28

The Court will issue a separate order regarding defendants’ objections to Best Buy’s summary
chart titled “NEC.”
2

1

admissible under FRE 902(12) and FRE 803(6).2

2
3
4
5

2.

“Shorthand Definition” (Royal Philips)

In response to HannStar’s objection, Best Buy will use the full name of Koninklijke Philips
Electronics NV.

6
7
8

3.

Dates

In response to HannStar’s objection, Best Buy will insert the dates at issue.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

4.

Majority Ownership

11

The Court OVERRULES defendants’ objections. Best Buy may introduce evidence of corporate

12

relationships even if the ownership shares are less than 50%, as those relationships may be relevant to

13

demonstrating control.

14
15
16
17

5.

Sanyo

Defendants object that Panasonic’s acquisition of Sanyo is irrelevant because it occurred in 2011.
Best Buy states that it does not intend to refer to Sanyo in its summary chart.

18
19

6.

Toshiba and Panasonic Slides

20

The Court OVERRULES the objections to Best Buy’s slides (1) depicting Toshiba entities

21

together and (2) the Panasonic slide depicting Toshiba. Defendants may address their concerns through

22

cross-examination.

23
24
25
26
2

27
28

The record contains the custodian of records declarations for the NEC press releases and the
joint venture agreements. Best Buy represents that it has a custodian of records declaration for the
Sharp 100 Anniversary Annual Report, and that this declaration is similar to the other custodian of
records declarations.
3

1

7.

2
3

Sharp Slides

In response to HannStar’s objection that Best Buy had not presented a slide regarding Sharp,
Best Buy has revised its summary chart to include Sharp.

4
5

II.

Best Buy’s Trial Brief re Dr. James McClave

6

The Court GRANTS Best Buy’s motion to preclude defendants from calling Dr. McClave3 and

7

to preclude argument or testimony regarding Dr. McClave. Docket No. 8336. Dr. McClave was

8

disclosed as an expert witness by a plaintiff in a different case, Target, and subsequently withdrawn by

9

Target. Neither Best Buy nor defendants have ever disclosed Dr. McClave as a witness, and Dr.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

McClave has never offered any opinions regarding Best Buy.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

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

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

In any event, defendants state that they will not be calling Dr. McClave as a live witness.
4