Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04062/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04062-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK 

QUESTIONS REGARDING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK 

QUESTIONS REGARDING MOTION 

FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

By Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 10 a.m., the parties shall file responses concisely

answering the below questions. Plaintiffs’ response shall not exceed three pages. Defendants’

response shall not exceed five pages.

Questions for Plaintiffs

 How many putative class members are there? 

 Plaintiffs cite the Ninth Circuit’s Williams and Cameron cases for the point that a statute of 

limitations defense does not defeat class certification. Are Plaintiffs aware of any case in 

which the Ninth Circuit has considered the more specific question of whether a claim 

broadly requiring proof of fraudulent concealment may be certified as a class action?

 Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition has expanded from the SAC to include plaintiffs from 

2001-2003. Do Plaintiffs dispute that, absent fraudulent concealment, those claims are 

equally time barred as the claims from 2004 onwards?

o Do Plaintiffs dispute that the new plaintiffs for 2001-2003 must satisfy the test for 

relation back to the original complaint to be properly added?

 What percentage of the class earned statistically significantly less than the but-for 

compensation predicted by Dr. Ashenfelter? 

 What are the confidence intervals on the percentage of under-compensation for each year 

of the alleged conspiracy? 

Case 5:14-cv-04062-LHK Document 270 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK 

QUESTIONS REGARDING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Questions for Defendants 

 Do Defendants dispute that DreamWorks improperly included independent contractors in 

the data initially provided to Dr. Ashenfelter?

 Have the Defendants verified that none of the other Defendants included independent 

contractors in the data provided to Dr. Ashenfelter?

 Defendants argue in their opposition brief that Dr. Ashenfelter’s selection of job titles for 

inclusion in the class is unreliable because it relied upon an algorithm. See Corrected Opp. 

at 12. In support of this argument, Defendants cite to the expert report of Dr. Keeley. 

However, Dr. Keeley argues in his expert report that Dr. Ashenfelter’s selection of job 

titles is unreliable because it did not rely exclusively upon an algorithm but instead relied 

upon Dr. Ashenfelter’s judgment. Keeley Report ¶¶ 34-36. Is the Defendants’ argument 

that Dr. Ashenfelter’s selection is unreliable because it relied upon an algorithm, or that 

Dr. Ashenfelter’s selection is unreliable because it did not rely upon an algorithm?

 Do Defendants dispute that Dr. Keeley omitted fixed effects in his calculation of but-for 

pay under Dr. Ashenfelter’s model? If Dr. Keeley did omit fixed effects, does Dr. Keeley 

contend this was proper?

 Do Defendants dispute that Dr. Keeley failed to account for the “smearing factor” in his 

calculation of but-for pay under Dr. Ashenfelter’s model? If Dr. Keeley did not account for 

the “smearing factor,” does Dr. Keeley contend this was proper?

 Do Defendants dispute that Dr. Keeley used the standard error for model estimation 

instead of the standard error for prediction in Exhibit 14 of Dr. Keeley’s report? If Dr. 

Keeley did use the standard error for model estimation, does Dr. Keeley contend this was 

proper?

 The first element of fraudulent concealment is the concealment or affirmative misleading 

prong. Do the Defendants dispute that the Plaintiffs intend to show concealment using 

common proof not specific to each plaintiff?

 Are Defendants aware of any case in which the Ninth Circuit has held that predominance 

cannot be found if the class must establish fraudulent concealment to prevail? 

 It is unclear from Defendants’ declarations how many potential class members are subject 

to a release or an arbitration agreement. For example, the Lucasfilm declaration gives a 

number for employees who have signed severance agreements, but it does not indicate 

whether all the employees who signed severance agreements are putative class members. 

Do Defendants have an estimate of the number of total class members who have a release 

or arbitration agreement with at least one of the Defendants?

 From the declarations, it appears that only DreamWorks and the Sony entities are asserting 

the existence of arbitration agreements with some class members. Is that correct?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04062-LHK Document 270 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 2