IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Filing 1013

ORDER RE QUESTIONS FOR 1/13/16 HEARING ON FTAIA ISSUES. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/12/2016. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION.

Case No. 14-cv-03264-JD
ORDER RE QUESTIONS FOR 1/13/16
HEARING ON FTAIA ISSUES

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

For the January 13, 2016 hearing on defendants’ summary judgment motions under the

13

FTAIA (Dkt. Nos. 911, 915), the Court directs the parties to be prepared to address these

14

questions:

15

1. Which defendants import capacitors into the United States?

16

a. Which defendants invoice customers located in the U.S.?

17

b. Which defendants directly ship capacitors into the U.S. (regardless of the

18
19
20

location of the customer who was invoiced for them)?
c. What percentage of capacitors were bought by and delivered to a plaintiff in the
U.S.?

21

d. Did the defendants engage in import commerce because the conspiracy’s intent

22

was to fix prices for U.S. customers and actions in furtherance of that intent

23

were taken by defendants’ employees located within the U.S.?

24
25
26
27
28

2. Which defendants sell exclusively outside the U.S.? Does any defendant contend it
never invoiced or shipped capacitors to any customer in the U.S.?

1
2

3. Which defendants sold outside of the U.S. but expected or targeted final delivery of
finished goods to the U.S.?

3

a. Was it understood that substantial numbers of finished products (incorporating

4

capacitors) were destined for the United States and that “the practical upshot of

5

the conspiracy would be and was increased prices to customers in the United

6

States,” U.S. v. Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738, 759 (9th Cir. 2014)?

7

4. For plaintiffs’ foreign purchase of capacitors that remained capacitors:
a. Which plaintiffs bought capacitors abroad through a foreign related company

8

who then shipped the capacitors to the U.S. company for resale in the U.S.?

9

b. Which plaintiffs bought capacitors abroad through a foreign related company

10

who then resold those capacitors abroad?

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

5. For plaintiffs’ foreign purchase of capacitors that were incorporated into finished
goods:

14

a. Which plaintiffs bought capacitors abroad through a foreign related company

15

who then shipped finished goods (incorporating those capacitors) to the U.S.

16

company for resale in the U.S.?
b. Which plaintiffs bought capacitors abroad through a foreign related company

17

who then sold finished goods (incorporating those capacitors) abroad?

18
19
20
21
22

6. Which plaintiffs purchased capacitors through foreign divisions rather than
subsidiaries?
7. Which defendants sold capacitors or finished goods from the U.S. to foreign
customers?

23

The Court’s intent is that the parties will clarify the mass of facts proffered in the

24

declarations by sorting them into clear “buckets” that address the FTAIA issues. The parties are

25

referred to Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2014), and In re

26

Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 904 F. Supp. 2d 310 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), for examples of helpful data

27

presentation.

28
2

1

Ideally, plaintiffs and defendants will be prepared to take a stand on the answers on a joint

2

basis. If the answers cannot be joint, each defendant must be prepared to answer these questions

3

with specific citations to declarations. It is likely the Court will call for additional written

4

submissions on these targeted questions.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2016

7
8
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3