Sony Electronics Inc. et al v. AU Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL SONY ENTITIES TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/5/2012)

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

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

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

This Order Relates to:

10

Case Nos.: C 10-5616 SI, C 12-2214 SI, C 121599 SI

11
12
13

Sony Electronics Inc. v. LG Display, et al., C 105616 SI

14

Sony Electronics Inc. v. HannStar Display, et al.,
C 12-2214 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER’S
ORDER RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
TO COMPEL SONY ENTITIES TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

15
16

Sony Electronics Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et
al., C 12-1599 SI
/

17
18

Defendants have filed an objection to the Special Master’s Order Re: Motion of Defendants to

19

Compel Sony Entities to Produce Documents. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on December 7,

20

2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for

21

resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing on this matter. For the reasons set forth

22

below, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ objection. Docket No. 7093.

23

In the order at issue, the Special Master denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to

24

produce documents in the possession of the plaintiffs’ Japanese parent and non-party, Sony Corporation.

25

Citing In re Citric Acid Litigation, 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.1999), the Special Master held that under

26

Ninth Circuit law, “a party cannot be compelled to produce documents in the possession of a non-party

27

affiliated entity unless the party has the legal right to compel the affiliate to provide the documents. It

28

is not sufficient to show that a subsidiary corporation has the practical ability to obtain documents from

1

its parent.” Docket No. 7036 at 3:7-11; see Citric Acid, 191 F.3d at 1107 (“[C]ontrol is defined as the

2

legal right to obtain documents upon demand.”) (citing United States v. International Union of

3

Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989)). The Special Master found that

4

plaintiffs, which are American subsidiaries of Sony Corporation, “have provided undisputed evidence

5

that they do not have access in the ordinary course of business to documents from their parent, Sony

6

Corporation, of the types that defendants have requested, and that they do not have the legal right, by

7

contract or otherwise, to compel their parent to produce such documents.” Id. at 4:7-10.
Defendants contend that the Special Master erred as a matter of law because “Citric Acid applies

9

only when the responding entity and the corporation possessing the documents have no corporate

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

affiliation.” Docket No. 7093 at 1:24-25. In support of this proposition, defendants largely rely on

11

cases from outside the Ninth Circuit, which the Special Master found “not controlling in the face of

12

contrary Ninth Circuit authority.” Id. at 4:23-24. Defendants also cite several district court cases within

13

the Ninth Circuit; the Special Master found that all but one of those cases was consistent with Citric

14

Acid, and that the one case was “out of line with Citric Acid and virtually every other Ninth Circuit case

15

[and therefore not] meaningful authority.” Id. at 5:8-9. Defendants seek an order compelling plaintiffs

16

to produce documents in the possession of Sony Corporation as well as documents in the possession of

17

non-party Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (“SCEI”), a wholly-owned Japanese subsidiary of Sony

18

Corporation.

19

The Court reviews the Special Master’s findings of fact for clear error, conclusions of law de

20

novo, and procedural rulings for an abuse of discretion. Amended Order Appointing Martin Quinn as

21

Special Master, Docket No. 6580 ¶ 18. The Court agrees with the analysis of the Special Master, and

22

accordingly OVERRULES defendants’ objection. In Citric Acid, the appellant asked the Ninth Circuit

23

—as defendants ask this Court— “to define ‘control’ in a manner that focuses on the party’s practical

24

ability to obtain the requested documents.” Citric Acid, 191 F.3d at 1107. The Ninth Circuit rejected

25

that argument, and held that “the legal control test is the proper standard under Rule 45.” Id. The

26

Special Master correctly analyzed the law and applied the legal control test in determining that plaintiffs

27
28
2

1
2
3

do not have the legal right to obtain documents upon demand from Sony Corporation1
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Special Master did not abuse his discretion
or commit clear error, and thus defendants’ objection is DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated: December 5, 2012
8

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Special Master’s order did not explicitly address defendants’ request for documents in the
possession of SCEI. However, the same analysis applies because it is undisputed that plaintiffs do not
have legal control of SCEI’s documents.
3