Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange Inc v. Jui Li Enterprise Company Ltd et al

Filing 1159

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 04/12/2018. IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion for reconsideration 1157 is DENIED. (cc: all counsel) (lls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
FOND DU LAC BUMPER EXCHANGE INC et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 09-C-852

JUI LI ENTERPRISE COMPANY LTD et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On April 10, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) in this antitrust action
moved for an order permitting disclosure to the Taiwan Tax Authority of certain
documents produced during discovery and marked confidential by defendants Taiwan
Kai Yih Industrial Co. Ltd. (TKY) and Gordon Auto Body Parts as part of DPPs’ efforts to
obtain a refund of a 20% tax on funds paid by these defendants to DPPs to settle DPPs’
claims against them. I granted that motion on April 11, 2018.
Gordon and TKY’s successor in interest, defendant Tong Yang Industry Co. Ltd.
(TYI), move for reconsideration of my order asserting that the information DPPs seek to
disclose to the Taiwanese government is “granular sales data” that is “some of the most
sensitive information they keep.” See Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 1157, at 2. According to
Gordon and TYI, “[i]f this information were to be improperly disclosed, there would be a
risk of serious, irreparable harm . . . and they would have virtually no remedy.” Id. In
other words, Gordon and TYI do not oppose disclosure to the Taiwan Tax Authority per
se but are concerned with the potential for subsequent, improper disclosure as a result.
Yet, if DPPs do not disclose the requested information to the Taiwan Tax
Authority, they have reason to believe that there is a “high possibility” that it will reject

their application for a tax refund totaling approximately $5 million. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF
No. 1154, at 2; Hartley Decl., ECF No. 1155, ¶ 5. This concern substantially outweighs
Gordon and TYI’s relatively vague apprehension about potential improper disclosure
and possible damage resulting therefrom. Thus, I will not revise my prior order.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 1157) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 12th day of April, 2018.

s/Lynn Adelman______
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2