Siegel v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 224

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON UNDISCLOSED CONSPIRATORS OR AFFILIATES 8921 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

11

This Order Relates To:

12

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., 3:10-cv-03205 SI

Case Nos. C 3:11-cv-03763-SI; 3:10-CV03205 SI 3:11-cv-03856-SI; 3:10-cv-05625SI; 3:11-cv-05765-SI; 3:11-cv-05781-SI;
3:11-cv-06241-SI; 3:12-cv-01426-SI

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON
UNDISCLOSED CONSPIRATORS OR
AFFILIATES

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of
Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC
v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-3856-SI
The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and
through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-05781-SI
Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
et al., 3:11-cv-5765-SI
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-6241-SI
NECO Alliance LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., et
al., 3:12-cv-1426-SI
Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-3763-SI
Alfred H. Siegel, As Trustee of the Circuit City
Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., 3:10-cv-5625-SI
/

1

Currently before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims related to

2

sales by undisclosed conspirators or affiliates. MDL Master Dkt. No. 8921. For the reasons set forth

3

below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART defendants’ motion.

4
LEGAL STANDARD

5

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

7

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The

8

moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

9

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party, however, has no burden to

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial. The moving

11

party need only demonstrate to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving

12

party’s case. Id. at 325.

13

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “set forth,

14

by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

15

trial.’” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing

16

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). To carry this burden, the non-moving party must “do more than simply show

17

that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.

18

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will

19

be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving

20

party].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).

21

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the light most

22

favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Id. at 255.

23

“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from

24

the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Id.

25

However, conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise

26

genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d

27

730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). The evidence the parties present must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

28
2

DISCUSSION

1
2

Defendants move for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims based on purchases from entities

3

not identified in discovery as conspirators or affiliates. Specifically, defendants seek summary judgment

4

as to plaintiffs’ claims as follows:

5
6

(i) Claims by AASI based on sales by: Samsung Electronics and Samsung SSI;

7

(ii) Claims by Circuit City based on sales by: Innolux Display Corp., Optrex Corp., Quanta

8

Display Inc., SVA NEC, Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., Unipac Optoelectronics, Epson

9

America, and Hitachi America;

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(iii) Claims by Compucom based on sales by: Samsung Electronics;

11

(iv) Claims by NECO based on sales by: Samsung Electronics;

12

(v) Claims by Tech Data based on sales by: IBM Latin America and Samsung Electronics; and

13

(vi) Claims by Tracfone based on sales by: Samsung Electronics.1

14
15

Defendants argue that the Court should grant summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims related

16

to any alleged conspirators or affiliates that plaintiffs failed to identify in response to defendants’

17

contention interrogatories. Plaintiffs contend that, even if these entities were not identified in response

18

to defendants’ specific interrogatories, their complaints and other discovery responses put defendants

19

on notice that plaintiffs considered these entities coconspirators or affiliates.

20

A plaintiff alleging a conspiracy need not name all alleged coconspirators in its complaint. See

21

William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1053 (9th Cir. 1981).

22

Instead, a plaintiff need only provide a defendant with adequate notice of any claimed coconspirators

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants also moved for summary judgment as to BrandsMart’s claim related to IBM Credit
Corporation; Tweeter’s claim related to Philips Consumer Electronics and Eclipse-Fujitsu; Tracfone’s
claims related to Innolux, LG Innotek, Toppoly, Seiko Instruments Inc., and TPO; and Circuit City’s
claims related to Advance Display Inc. and TPO. These plaintiffs do not oppose defendants’ motion
as to the stated entities. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to these plaintiffs’ claims
as they relate to these entities. Additionally, defendants have withdrawn their motion as it relates to
Circuit City’s direct product purchases from Philips Consumer Electronics, see MDL Master Dkt. No.
9091 at 11, and AASI’s purchases from Boe Hydis America, LG Semicon America, Mitsubishi
Electronics, and Optrex America, see MDL Master Dkt. No. 9109 at 1.
3

1

either through its complaint, or through its discovery responses, such that a defendant is not prejudiced.

2

See MDL Master Dkt. No. 7419 at 5. Contrary to defendants’ assertion that plaintiffs failed to provide

3

notice that they were pursuing claims based upon purchases from the challenged entities, many of the

4

entities were disclosed to defendants through plaintiffs’ complaints or discovery responses other than

5

the particular interrogatories on which defendants rely. The Court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently

6

identified the following entities, such that defendants will not be prejudiced by their inclusion as

7

coconspirators or affiliates:

8
(i) Claims by AASI based on sales by: Samsung Electronics and Samsung SSI. Samsung

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Electronics and Samsung SSI are both named in AASI’s complaint. Defendants were on notice

11

that AASI considered these entities to be coconspirators.

12

(ii) Claims by Circuit City based on sales by: Innolux Display Corp., Optrex Corp., Quanta

13

Display Inc., SVA NEC, Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., and Unipac Optoelectronics. Circuit

14

City identified Innolux Display Corp., Optrex Corp., SVA NEC, and Toppoly Optoelectronics

15

Corp. in response to defendants’ discovery requests. MDL Master Dkt. No. 8990-1, Exs. 6, 7,

16

8. Circuit City named Quanta Display, Inc., and Unipac Optoelectronics in its complaint, and

17

in its responses to defendants’ discovery requests. See id. Defendants were on notice that

18

Circuit City considered these entities to be coconspirators.

19

(iii) Claims by Compucom based on sales by: Samsung Electronics. Compucom identified

20

Samsung Electronics as a coconspirator in its complaint. Defendants were on notice that

21

Compucom considered Samsung Electronics a coconspirator.

22

(iv) Claims by NECO based on sales by: Samsung Electronics. NECO identified Samsung

23

Electronics as a coconspirator in its complaint. Defendants were on notice that NECO

24

considered Samsung Electronics a coconspirator.

25

(v) Claims by Tech Data based on sales by: Samsung Electronics. Tech Data identified

26

Samsung Electronics as a coconspirator in its complaint, and in its discovery responses.

27

Defendants were on notice that Tech Data considered Samsung Electronics a coconspirator.

28

(vi) Claims by Tracfone based on sales by: Samsung Electronics. Tracfone repeatedly identified
4

1

Samsung Electronics as a coconspirator in its complaint, and in its discovery responses.

2

Defendants were on notice that Tracfone considered Samsung Electronics a coconspirator.

3
4
5

Accordingly, with respect to the plaintiffs and entities listed above, defendants’ motion is
DENIED.
However, with respect to the remainder of the challenged entities, the Court finds that plaintiffs

7

failed to adequately disclose their identities prior to the close of discovery. Permitting the plaintiffs to

8

seek damages based on interactions with these entities would be prejudicial to defendants because it

9

would not permit defendants the opportunity to conduct discovery on plaintiffs’ claims that they are

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

entitled to damages based on purchases from these entities. The Court finds that plaintiffs have not

11

sufficiently identified the following entities, such that defendants would prejudiced by their inclusion

12

as coconspirators or affiliates:

13
14

(i) Claims by Circuit City based on sales by: Epson America, and Hitachi America. Circuit City

15

argues that it should be permitted to pursue its claims against Epson America and Hitachi

16

America because these entities have close corporate relationships with other Epson and Hitachi

17

entities that are named in its complaint. The Court has previously found that corporate family

18

allegations are insufficient to adequately allege participation in this conspiracy. See MDL

19

Master Dkt. No. 7419 at 7-9. The Court will not depart from that ruling here, and finds that

20

defendants would be prejudiced if Circuit City were permitted to seek damages based upon

21

purchases from these entities.

22

(ii) Claims by Tech Data based on sales by: IBM Latin America. Tech Data asserts that IBM

23

Latin America does not exist. Defendants assert that IBM Latin America does exist, but that

24

Tech Data’s claims in relation to this entity cannot survive because Tech Data did not list IBM

25

Latin America as an alleged coconspirator or affiliate in its discovery responses. The Court need

26

not decide whether IBM Latin America exists; Tech Data did not identify this entity in

27

discovery, and therefore defendant would be prejudiced if Tech Data was permitted to seek

28

damages based upon purchases from this entity.
5

1
2

Accordingly, with respect to the plaintiffs and entities listed above, defendants’ motion is
GRANTED.

3
CONCLUSION

4
5

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND

6

DENIES IN PART defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on undisclosed coconspirators or

7

affiliates. Specifically, plaintiffs may not seek damages based on purchases from the following entities:

8
9

(i) Claims by Circuit City based on sales by: Epson America, and Hitachi America;

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(ii) Claims by Tech Data based on sales by: IBM Latin America;

11

(iii) Claims by BrandsMart based on sales by: IBM Credit Corporation;

12

(iv) Claims by Tweeter based on sales by: Philips Consumer Electronics and Eclipse-Fujitsu;

13

(v) Claims by Tracfone based on sales by: Innolux, LG Innotek, Toppoly, Seiko Instruments

14

Inc., and TPO; and

15

(vi) Claims by Circuit City based on sales by: Advance Display Inc. and TPO.

16
17

This Order resolves MDL Master Docket No. 8921.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: July 3, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6