Best Buy Co. Inc. et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al

Filing 198

ORDER DENYING TOSHIBA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: BEST BUY 8097 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/8/2013)

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. 12-CV-4114 SI
MDL. No. 1827

This Order Relates to:

ORDER DENYING TOSHIBA’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11
12
13

Best Buy v. Toshiba Corp. et al
Case No. 12-CV-4114

14
/

15
16

Toshiba’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on July 9, 2013. Pursuant

17

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without

18

oral argument, and VACATES the hearing on these motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

19

DENIES Toshiba’s motion. Docket No. 8097.

20

Toshiba argues that Best Buy is unable to provide direct evidence of Toshiba’s participation in

21

the Crystal Meetings conspiracy. As such, Toshiba argues, Best Buy’s case rests entirely on

22

circumstantial evidence and thus, Best Buy must submit evidence tending to exclude the possibility that

23

Toshiba acted independently from the overarching Crystal Meeting conspiracy alleged. Because Best

24

Buy cannot do this, Toshiba asserts, the Court should grant its motion for summary judgment.

25

The Court previously addressed a similar motion by Toshiba in the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff

26

(“DPP”) trial last year. See Docket Nos. 3581 and 4043. In that motion, Toshiba, largely relying on In

27

re Citric Acid Litigation, 995 F. Supp. 951 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999), argued

28

that its case should not be allowed to go to trial because plaintiffs were unable produce evidence that

1

Toshiba ever attended a crystal meeting, and they produced little direct evidence that Toshiba otherwise

2

conspired with the other TFT-LCD manufacturers. The Court concluded that Toshiba’s case was

3

distinguished from Citric Acid in that there was “ample evidence for a jury to find that Toshiba

4

participated in the overarching conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels[,]” even though there was

5

no “smoking gun” evidence linking Toshiba to the crystal meetings. Moreover, the Court concluded,

6

there was ample circumstantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that “Toshiba was informed

7

of the decisions reached at crystal meetings through bilateral communications with other TFT-LCD

8

manufacturers.”
Toshiba now argues that in light of new evidence from the DPP trial, no basis remains for

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

distinguishing Citric Acid from Toshiba’s claims. Specifically, Toshiba provides testimony from Brian

11

Lee, a Chunghwa participant at crystal meetings, and C.C. Liu, also of Chunghwa, to support its

12

argument that there is now evidence to demonstrate, unequivocally, that Toshiba never participated in

13

the Crystal Meeting conspiracy. Moreover, Toshiba argues that Best Buy has failed to satisfy its burden

14

in providing evidence tending to exclude the possibility that Toshiba acted independently from the

15

overarching Crystal Meeting conspiracy.

16

The Court disagrees.1 Contrary to Toshiba’s argument, this evidence does not demonstrate,

17

unequivocally, as was the case in Citric Acid, that Toshiba did not participate in the crystal conspiracy.

18

While the evidence may demonstrate that Toshiba did not itself attend any meetings, there remains

19

sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Toshiba participated in the overarching conspiracy through

20

discussions with conspirators, outside of crystal meetings, to fix prices.

21

Moreover, the evidence presented fails to change the Court’s view that circumstantial evidence

22

exists from which a jury could conclude that “Toshiba was informed of the decisions reached at crystal

23

meetings through bilateral communications with other TFT-LCD manufacturers[,]...[and] Toshiba

24

received pricing information from its competitors, shared its own pricing information, and was aware

25

of its wrongdoing.” As the Court previously noted, although Toshiba asserts these exchanges are

26

legitimate exchanges of information, “such disputes regarding the interpretation of evidence are not

27
1

28

The Court makes no finding with respect to the admissibility of the testimony of Lee and Liu,
but assumes that is is admissible for purposes of deciding Toshiba’s motion.
2

1
2

appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.”
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Toshiba’s motion for summary judgment.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

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

7
8
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
28
3