Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-312/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917 

Case No. C-07-5944-SC 

This Order Relates To: ORDER RE: THOMSON DISCOVERY 

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Hitachi 

Ltd., No. C-13-1173-SC; 

Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. 

Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05724; 

Siegel v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-

cv-05261; 

Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Technicolor 

SA, No. 13-cv-05264; 

Target Corp. v. Technicolor SA, 

No. 13-cv-05686 

Interbond Corporation of America 

v. Technicolor 

SA, No. 13-cv-05727; 

Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor 

SA, No. 13-cv-05726; 

 

Costco Wholesale Corporation v. 

Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05723; 

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island 

Corporation v. Technicolor SA, No. 

13-cv-05725; 

Schultze Agency Services, LLC v. 

Technicolor SA, Ltd., No. 13-cv05668; 

Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart 

Corp. v. Technicolor SA, No. 3:13-

cv-05262; 

Tech Data Corp., et al. v. 

Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 13-cv00157; 

Crago, et al. v. Mitsubishi Elec. 

Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-02058. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 23
2 

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

For the Northern District of California 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Now before the Court are several issues related to the Direct 

Action Plaintiffs' ("DAPs") discovery efforts against Defendants 

Thomson SA and Thomson Consumer ("Thomson"). First, Thomson 

objects to the Special Master's1 Recommended Order, ECF No. 2812 

("R&R") granting DAPs', led by Sharp, motion to compel production 

of various documents and witnesses in France pursuant to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 2849 ("Obj."). Without 

prejudice to the motion to compel, DAPs seek similar discovery via 

the issuance of letters of request for international judicial 

assistance in the production of documents, ECF No. 2716 ("Docs. 

Mot."), and depositions in France, ECF No. 2776 ("Depos. Mot."), 

pursuant to the procedures of the Hague Convention.2

 Finally, in 

light of the passage of the fact discovery deadline on September 5, 

2014, DAPs seek to extend the deadline to permit the aforementioned 

productions and depositions to take place. ECF No. 2773 ("Deadline 

Mot."). The motions and objection are fully briefed,3 and 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 

Thomson's objection and GRANTS DAPs' motion to compel. Having 

found that DAPs need not resort to Hague Convention procedures in 

 

1

 On December 17, 2013 the Court appointed the Honorable Vaughn R. 

Walker, United States District Judge (Retired), as a Special Master 

to assist the Court with discovery matters. ECF No. 2272. 

2

 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or 

Commercial Matters, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 

7444 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1780) ("Hague Convention"). 

 

3

 ECF Nos. 2727 ("Docs. Opp'n"); 2782 ("Depos. Opp'n"); 2783 

("Deadline Opp'n"). Plaintiff ViewSonic Corporation also submitted 

a brief memorandum in support of DAPs' motion to extend the 

discovery deadline. ECF No. 2778 ("Viewsonic Br."). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 23
3 

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

For the Northern District of California 

seeking the documents and depositions at issue, DAPs are ORDERED to 

file a statement explaining whether they intend to proceed with 

their motions for the issuance of letters of request. Finally, the 

Court GRANTS DAPs' motion to extend the cutoff for discovery of 

Thomson. 

 

III. BACKGROUND 

The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural 

background of the case. DAPs, led by Sharp, seek discovery of 

documents and witnesses in France. Specifically, DAPs pursue 

documents held by Thomson in France that are relevant to Thomson's 

communications with competitors and aspects of Thomson's CRT 

business, and documents produced to various foreign regulatory 

agencies during prior investigations related to price fixing in the 

CRT industry. Those include documents produced during a 2012 

European Commission ("EC") investigation that found Defendants 

participated in a price fixing cartel for CRTs. See Docs. Mot. at 

4-5. DAPs also wish to depose four former Thomson employees in 

France who have been identified as potential participants in 

meetings related to the alleged CRT conspiracy. Depos. Mot. at 2. 

To provide time for this discovery to take place, the DAPs request 

extension of the fact discovery deadline. Deadline Mot. at 4-5. 

DAPs propose two alternative means of obtaining this 

discovery. First, DAPs argue that, notwithstanding the provisions 

of the so-called French Blocking Statute,4

 the Federal Rules of 

 

4

 See Loi No. 80-538 du 16 juillet 1980 relative à la communication 

de documents et renseignements d'ordre économique, commercial ou 

technique à des personnes physiques ou morales étrangères [Law 80-

538 of July 16, 1980 relating to the Communication of Economic, 

Commercial, Industrial, Financial or Technical Documents or 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 3 of 23
4 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Civil Procedure should govern the discovery sought here. Without 

prejudice to that position, DAPs propose the Court issue letters of 

request for international judicial assistance in obtaining the 

documents and depositions sought. Thomson disagrees with both 

positions, arguing (1) that permitting discovery to go forward 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, by virtue of the 

French Blocking Statute, subject them to possible French criminal 

sanctions for compliance, and (2) DAPs' letters of request are 

overly broad, unduly burdensome, and do not comply with the Hague 

Convention and French government's requirements for international 

discovery requests. 

DAPs' first position, that the discovery sought should be 

obtained through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was raised 

in a motion to compel production of documents and a Rule 30(b)(6) 

deponent before the Special Master. In that motion, DAPs contended 

that the Supreme Court's decision in Société Nationale Industrielle 

Aérospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) ("Aerospatiale"), forecloses 

any obligation to resort first to Hague Convention procedures. 

 

Information to Foreign, Natural or Legal Person], J. Officiel de la 

République Française [J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], July 17, 

1980, p. 1799 ("French Blocking Statute"). 

The law provides: 

"Subject to treaties or international agreements and 

applicable laws and regulations, it is prohibited for any 

party to request, seek or disclose, in writing, orally or 

otherwise, economic, commercial, industrial, financial or 

technical documents or information leading to the constitution 

of evidence with a view to foreign judicial or administrative 

proceedings or in connection therewith." 

Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. 

Ct. for the So. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 527 n.6 (1987). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 4 of 23
5 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Instead, DAPs argued that under the factors identified in 

Aerospatiale, DAPs' interest in obtaining this discovery outweighed 

the interests of international comity that might otherwise compel 

them to seek discovery through the Hague Convention. The Special 

Master concurred, finding that Sharp and the DAPs need not resort 

to the Hague Convention procedures,5

 they "may be well advised to 

proceed simultaneously under the more cumbersome procedures of the 

Hague Convention" and as a result, the Special Master suggested the 

Court give its prompt attention to DAPs' motions for issuance of 

letters of request. R&R at 6. 

 Now Thomson objects. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

 A. Review of Orders by the Special Master 

The Court reviews the Special Master's factual findings for 

clear error, his legal conclusions de novo, and his procedural 

decisions for abuse of discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(5); 

ECF No. 302 (appointing the previous special master). 

 B. Discovery of Evidence Located Abroad 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize party-initiated 

discovery of any evidence that is relevant to any party's claims or 

defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, Rule 26 grants the 

court discretion to limit discovery on several grounds, including 

 

5

 The Special Master did, however, deny the motion to compel as to 

one category of documents he found might run afoul of the 

undersigned's prior order foreclosing discovery of the European 

Commission's investigation and confidential decision involving 

these Defendants. See In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust 

Litig., No. 07-cv-5944-SC, 2014 WL 1247770, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 

26, 2014). That decision is currently the subject of a renewed 

motion to compel by DAPs. ECF No. 2843. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 5 of 23
6 

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

For the Northern District of California 

international comity. See Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544. 

The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit agree that comity and 

foreign law alone are not dispositive when a discovery dispute 

arises regarding a foreign law's protection of documents sought in 

a United States court. See id. at 544 & n.29; Societe 

Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales v. 

Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 208 (1958); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling 

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court 

must consider the following factors in determining whether or not 

foreign law excuses noncompliance with a United States court's 

discovery orders: 

(1) the importance to the . . . litigation of the 

documents or other information requested; (2) the degree 

of specificity of the request; (3) whether the 

information originated in the United States; (4) the 

availability of alternative means of securing the 

information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance 

with the request would undermine important interests of 

the United States, or compliance with the request would 

undermine important interests of the state where the 

information is located. 

Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n.28. This list is not exhaustive. 

The Ninth Circuit has also considered other factors, including "the 

extent and the nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcement 

would impose upon the person, . . . [and] the extent to which 

enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to 

achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by that state." United 

States v. Vetco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1281, 1287 (9th Cir. 1981); see 

also Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1475. 

C. Modification of Scheduling Orders 

 Scheduling orders "may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Pretrial 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 6 of 23
7 

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

For the Northern District of California 

scheduling orders may be modified if the dates scheduled "cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus of the good cause inquiry is "on 

the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party 

was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

The Court addresses three main issues in this order. First, 

Thomson's objections to the Special Master's report and 

recommendation granting Sharp and DAPs' motion to compel Thomson to 

produce documents and deponents under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. After concluding that the motion to compel should be 

granted, the Court then turns to DAPs' parallel requests for the 

same or similar discovery by means of letters of request for 

international judicial assistance, and DAPs' motion to extend the 

discovery deadline to permit the discovery at issue to take place. 

A. Objection to Special Master's Recommendation 

In granting Sharp's motion, the Special Master made three 

findings Thomson considers objectionable. First, the Special 

Master apparently misinterpreted a letter received from the French 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that the provisions of the 

Blocking Statute are "mandatory," and as a result, Thomson 

concludes his analysis is "premised on a fundamental error." Obj. 

at 1. Second, Thomson argues the "extraordinary expense and 

burden" imposed by DAPs' requests, id. at 2, belies the Special 

Master's conclusion that the discovery sought could be "completed 

in a matter of weeks, not months or years." R&R at 7. Finally, 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 7 of 23
8 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Thomson seizes upon the Special Master's observation that the Court 

might cure possible prejudice resulting from these late discovery 

requests in addressing forthcoming proposals for structuring the 

trials in these matters, and argues that separate treatment would 

"severely prejudice Thomson . . . ." Obj. at 2. 

The Court reviews each issue de novo. 

 1. Blocking Statute and International Comity 

Thomson's chief objection to the Special Master's report and 

recommendation relates to the French Blocking Statute. Perhaps no 

single law better illustrates the gulf between American and civil 

law countries' attitudes toward pre-trial discovery than the 

Blocking Statute. See Diana Lloyd Muse, Note, Discovery in France 

and the Hague Convention: The Search for a French Connection, 64 

N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1073, 1073-78 (1989) (reviewing the historical, 

social, and cultural context of the Blocking Statute). As the 

Special Master put it, were the Blocking Statute to be applied 

literally, it "would thwart much of the normal process of discovery 

from French nationals and of evidence located in that country." 

R&R at 4-5. 

 In short, the parties disagree as to what extent, if any, the 

interests in international comity embodied in the Hague Convention 

should compel DAPs to refine their requests and resort to the 

Convention's letters of request process so as to avoid running 

afoul of the Blocking Statute. DAPs argue that because the Supreme 

Court held in Aerospatiale that the Hague Convention's procedures 

for obtaining discovery abroad serve as a "permissive supplement, 

not a pre-emptive replacement, for other means of obtaining 

evidence abroad," 482 U.S. at 539-40, and the comity factors 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 8 of 23
9 

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

For the Northern District of California 

identified by the Court and the Ninth Circuit weigh in their favor, 

the Court should order Thomson to submit to discovery pursuant to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thomson disagrees, citing a 

letter from an official at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

suggesting that the Blocking Statute's provisions are "mandatory," 

and that Hague Convention procedures are "potentially applicable in 

this case." As a result, Thomson argues it may be subjected to 

potential criminal sanctions if it were compelled to produce these 

documents or witnesses outside the Hague Convention process. See 

Docs. Opp'n at 2-3 (citing In re Advocat Christopher X., Cour de 

cassation [Cass. Crim.], Paris, crim., Dec. 12, 2007, Bull. crim., 

No. 7168 [JurisData No. 2007-83228] (Fr.) (fining a lawyer €10,000 

for violating the blocking statute)). 

 As mentioned before, the Court considers a series of factors 

in weighing whether foreign laws like the French Blocking Statute 

excuse compliance with an American discovery requests. 

Specifically the Court considers: (1) the importance of the 

discovery to this litigation, (2) the specificity of the requests, 

(3) the origin of the information sought, (4) whether alternative 

means are available to obtain the discovery, (5) the interests of 

the United States and foreign state, (6) the extent of hardship, 

and (7) "the extent to which enforcement by action of either state 

can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule 

prescribed by that state." 2014 WL 1247770, at *2 (quoting 

Aerospatiale, at 544 n.28; Vetco, 691 F.2d at 1287). 

The parties agree that the information sought originated in 

France, and as a result, that factor weighs in favor of denying the 

motion to compel. The Court will address each remaining factor in 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 9 of 23
10 

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

For the Northern District of California 

turn. 

a. Importance of the Discovery Sought 

 First, the discovery sought is highly significant to this 

litigation. Courts are often more likely to heed a foreign state's 

concerns when the case "does not stand or fall on the present 

discovery order," or if the evidence sought is cumulative, 

Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1475; In re Rubber Chems. Antitrust Litig., 

486 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Here, while it is 

possible DAPs would be able to prove their claims against Thomson 

without access to this discovery, doing so would be challenging to 

say the least. For example, DAPs seek discovery into Thomson's 

communications and meetings with competitors. This information is 

crucial to DAPs' liability case against Thomson and may inform 

their liability cases against the other alleged co-conspirators. 

 Nevertheless, some other materials sought, while relevant, are 

perhaps less important to this litigation. For instance, documents 

produced to the European Commission ("EC") in its confidential 

investigation of the same alleged cartel are likely to be largely 

cumulative of other DAPs' other requests. Finally, while documents 

and information regarding the disposition of Thomson's CRT business 

are certainly relevant for discovery purposes, DAPs have not made 

immediately clear how central those documents are to this 

litigation. 

 Despite these flaws, on balance this factor weighs strongly in 

favor of granting the motion to compel. 

b. Specificity of the Requests 

Second, while always staying within the bounds of permissible 

discovery under the Federal Rules, at times DAPs requests sweep 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 10 of 23
11 

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

For the Northern District of California 

quite broadly. "[G]eneralized searches for information whose 

disclosure is prohibited under foreign law are discouraged." 

Rubber Chems., 486 F. Supp. 2d at 1083 (citing Richmark, 959 F.2d 

at 1475). Thomson argues that many of DAPs' requests are 

imprecise, overly broad, burdensome, or seek information that has 

already been produced by Thomson Consumer. In particular, Thomson 

takes issue with DAPs' requests for production of documents related 

to (1) Thomson Consumer's relationship with Thomson SA, (2) the 

disposition of Thomson's CRT business, and (3) the European 

Commission's confidential investigation of Thomson and other 

Defendants in this case. See ECF No. 2716-2 ("Benson Letters 

Decl.") Ex. A ("RFP") Requests Nos. 33, 35-37, 42, 46-60. 

Several of Thomson's complaints have merit. For instance, 

Request Number 33 calls for: 

All Documents relating to any contemplated, proposed, 

planned, pending or executed purchases, sales, 

acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, divestitures, 

transfers, spin-offs or any other change in ownership of 

any assets, liabilities, subsidiaries, departments, units 

or other subdivisions of Your or another company relating 

to production, distribution, marketing, pricing, sale or 

resale of CRTs during the Relevant Period. 

While this request certainly satisfies the test for relevance in 

discovery, Rule 26(b)(1), the request is also likely to capture a 

significant amount of irrelevant information. At the same time, 

many, if not most, of DAPs' requests are narrowly-tailored and fall 

far short of "generalized searches for information." Rubber Chems. 

486 F. Supp. 2d at 1083 (citation omitted). For instance Request 

Number 2 asks for the identity of executives or employees in 

management positions with respect to specifically enumerated 

aspects of Thomson's CRT business. See ECF No. 2773-1 ("Benson 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 11 of 23
12 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Decl.") Ex. 9 at 9. 

 As a result this factor weighs only minimally against granting 

the motion to compel. 

 c. Availability Through Alternative Means 

 Third, while these documents are nominally available through 

Hague Convention procedures, at this stage they may be unavailable 

as a practical matter. "If the information sought can easily be 

obtained elsewhere, there is little or no reason to offend foreign 

law." Rubber Chems., 486 F. Supp. 2d at 1083. 

 At this late date, it would be difficult, if not impossible, 

for DAPs to obtain the discovery expeditiously through Hague 

Convention procedures. As an empirical study of Hague Convention 

document and deposition requests found, France is particularly slow 

to execute Hague Convention requests, and when they are executed, 

often the results are unsatisfactory.6 Furthermore, while Thomson 

complains that some categories of evidence are available in the 

U.S. and have already been produced, most of the information sought 

in the motion to compel must be obtained one way or another from 

France. 

Accordingly, the lack of alternative means for obtaining much 

of the information sought weighs strongly in favor of production. 

 d. The Interests of the United States and France 

Fourth, the strong national interests of the United States are 

at play. This is a case alleging violations of United States 

 

6

 See Am. Bar Ass'n, Int'l Litig. Comm., Section of Int'l L. & 

Prac., Report on Survey of Experience of U.S. Lawyers with the 

Hague Evidence Convention Letter of Request Procedures, at 7, 10-

11, n.16 (Oct. 9, 2003) ("ABA Report"), available at: 

http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/lse_20us.pdf. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 12 of 23
13 

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

For the Northern District of California 

antitrust laws, laws that are of "fundamental importance to 

American democratic capitalism." Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler 

Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 634 (1985). As the Supreme 

Court has recognized, enforcement of the antitrust laws through 

private civil actions is an important part of encouraging 

compliance with those laws. See Hawaii v. Std. Oil Co. of Cal., 

405 U.S. 251, 262 (1972). On the other hand, France's interests 

here are significantly weaker. To be sure, France has an interest 

in controlling foreign access to information within its borders, 

and in protecting its citizens from foreign discovery practices it 

views as antithetical to the French legal culture. Nevertheless, 

France also shares an interest in preventing price-fixing behavior, 

as is demonstrated by the European Commission's investigation and 

confidential decision involving price-fixing allegations in the CRT 

market. See 2014 WL 1247770, at *1 (describing the European 

Commission decision); see also In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. 

Antitrust Litig., 278 F.R.D. 51, 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (noting that 

"France, given its membership in the European Economic 

Community . . . " has also adopted prohibitions against pricefixing). The national interests in enforcement of antitrust laws 

are "only realized if the parties have access to relevant 

discovery." Air Cargo, 278 F.R.D. at 54. 

As a result, the United States' strong national interests 

weigh in favor of granting the motion to compel. 

 e. Extent of Hardship 

Fifth, while Thomson argues this factor weighs strongly in its 

favor, its position is weaker than it may initially appear. 

Specifically, Thomson points to the potential for criminal 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 13 of 23
14 

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

For the Northern District of California 

sanctions if they comply with discovery requests outside the Hague 

Convention process and a letter from the French Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs stating that the provisions of the Blocking Statute are 

"mandatory." Obj. at 1. Furthermore, they argue that the Special 

Master misinterpreted this letter when he concluded that it stems 

from an "unrelated matter . . . ." R&R at 5. 

Thomson is right that the Special Master misinterpreted the 

letter, however that is not enough to tip the scales on this factor 

heavily in their favor. While the Supreme Court has stated that 

"fear of criminal prosecution constitutes a weighty excuse for 

nonproduction," Aerospatiale, 357 U.S. at 211, many courts have 

discounted that risk in the context of the French Blocking Statute, 

noting that the Blocking Statute "does not subject defendants to a 

realistic risk of prosecution . . . ." Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 

202 F.R.D. 370, 375 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); see also Air Cargo, 278 F.R.D. 

at 53-54; Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 249 F.R.D. 429, 454-55 

(E.D.N.Y. 2008); Adidas (Canada) Ltd. v. SS Seatrain Bennington, 

Nos. 80 Civ. 1911, 82 Civ. 0375, 1984 WL 423, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 

30, 1984). In fact, the legislative history of the Blocking 

Statute "gives strong indications that it was never expected or 

intended to be enforced against French subjects but was intended 

rather to provide them with tactical weapons and bargaining chips 

in foreign courts." Adidas, at *3. 

 Furthermore, Thomson's reliance on a case in which a French 

court imposed a monetary sanction for violating the Blocking 

Statute is misplaced. That case, In re Advocat Christopher X, 

involved a French attorney who made false statements to a potential 

French witness in an effort to obtain evidence to be used in a case 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 14 of 23
15 

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

For the Northern District of California 

pending in California. See Air Cargo, 278 F.R.D. at 54 

(summarizing the facts of Christopher X). Christopher X did not 

involve discovery requests made in the California litigation nor 

did it involve a court order compelling production under protest. 

Id. Thomson has pointed to no similar case, nor indeed any other 

case, in which the Blocking Statute was enforced against a French 

company. As such the Court finds the risk of prosecution in this 

case, if any, is minimal. This is true even in light of the 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs' letter in this litigation. Notably, 

nowhere does the letter suggest or threaten prosecution for 

complying with discovery requests or orders in this litigation. 

Instead, as at least one other court has found in considering (and 

rejecting) a similar letter, the letter "does little more than 

generally state [France's] interest in sovereignty and restate . . 

. that French civil and criminal laws prohibit [Thomson] from 

disclosing . . . the information in dispute here." Strauss, 249 

F.R.D. at 448. 

 In short, neither the letter nor the specter of potential 

criminal prosecution is enough to convince the Court that this 

factor weighs anything more than minimally in Thomson's favor. 

 f. Conclusion 

 Having considered the relevant factors, they weigh in favor 

of permitting discovery to go forward in France pursuant to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, on this point 

Thomson's objection is DENIED. 

 2. Remaining Objections 

Having found that the factors in Aerospatiale favor production 

pursuant to the Federal Rules, the Court must turn now to Thomson's 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 15 of 23
16 

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

For the Northern District of California 

remaining two objections. First, Thomson contends that the Special 

Master failed to appropriately weigh the burdens of production. 

Obj. at 3-5. Second, Thomson objects to the Special Master's 

passing reference to trial phasing and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 42(b) bifurcation motions to the extent he suggested that 

Thomson's claims may be tried on a different schedule than the 

other Defendants'. Obj. at 5. 

 The Rule 42(b) issue can be dispensed with quickly. Nowhere 

was the Special Master suggesting that Thomson's case should be 

tried on a separate schedule than the remaining Defendants'. 

Instead, the Court reads the Special Master to have simply pointed 

out the possibility that in ruling on the (then unseen) Rule 42(b) 

motions, the Court might factor in unfinished discovery issues. 

Now that those motions have been filed, it appears that neither 

side is seeking to try any of the Defendants on a separate schedule 

than the others, and the Court is acutely aware of the potential 

prejudice that Thomson would suffer were their claims to be tried 

on a different schedule. See ECF No. 2897 ("IPP & DAP 42(b) 

Mot."); 2903 ("Best Buy Joinder"); 2914 ("Defs.' 42(b) CrossMot."). As a result, the Court sees no reason the Special Master's 

aside regarding the Rule 42(b) motions undermines his (or the 

Court's) conclusion that DAPs are entitled the discovery at issue 

here. 

 The issue of the burdens of discovery is more complicated, but 

ultimately does not alter the Court's conclusion. In support of 

their objection on this basis, Thomson provides only scant citation 

to authority, but the Court takes their objection to be based on 

Rule 26's requirement that the Court limit discovery if it 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 16 of 23
17 

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

For the Northern District of California 

determines that the discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative," "the party seeking discovery has had ample 

opportunity to obtain the information," or the burden of discovery 

outweighs its expected benefits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-

(iii). Specifically Thomson argues that the Special Master was 

wrong when he concluded that "diligent efforts and cooperation 

between the parties should allow the discovery sought here to be 

completed in a matter of weeks, not months or years . . . ," and in 

any event, because DAPs have long been aware of the information 

they seek, the Court should deny the motion to compel. See Obj. at 

5 (citing Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(ii) for the proposition that Courts must 

limit discovery where "the party seeking discovery has had ample 

opportunity to obtain the information."). 

 The Court is not entirely unsympathetic to Thomson's 

complaints. As the Court previously observed, some of DAPs' 

requests are indeed broad. Furthermore, Thomson's financial 

situation does appear to be less secure than that of many of the 

other Defendants. Nonetheless, DAPs' requests are indisputably 

relevant, and even if not perfectly tailored, they are essential to 

DAPs' case against Thomson. As Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i) expressly 

contemplates, sometimes discovery may be somewhat cumulative or 

duplicative while nonetheless being permissible. See id. (stating 

the court must limit discovery if it is "unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative") (emphasis added). Furthermore, "broad discovery may 

be needed to uncover evidence of invidious design, pattern, or 

intent" in antitrust cases. In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 261 

F.R.D. 570, 573 (D. Kan. 2009) (quoting source). Accordingly, the 

Court finds no need to limit discovery on the bases enumerated in 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 17 of 23
18 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i). 

 Second, Thomson's suggests that, because DAPs have been aware 

of the information sought since "sometime between 2011 and 2013," 

the Court should deny them access to the information now. Thomson 

is mistaken on this point as well. First, it is difficult to 

conclude that DAPs have had "ample opportunity to obtain the 

information" at issue here given that discovery was stayed during 

the pendency of Thomson's motion to dismiss. Benson Decl. at Ex. 3 

("Order Staying Discovery"). Because of the stay, discovery 

against Thomson only began after March 13, 2014, when the Court 

denied Thomson's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 2240 ("Thomson MTD 

Order"). Furthermore it appears that DAPs have been 

extraordinarily diligent since that date, seeking the instant 

discovery as of April 2014 -- roughly a month after discovery of 

Thomson began -- and furnishing to the Court numerous other 

discovery requests also served on Thomson during that period. 

Benson Decl. ¶¶ 16-32 (showing numerous discovery requests since 

April 2014); ¶¶ 33-41 (outlining Sharp's initial efforts to seek 

the specific materials at issue here and the subsequent attempts to 

resolve those issues through meeting and conferring). Accordingly, 

the Court cannot find DAPs had "ample" opportunity to obtain this 

discovery sooner. 

 Finally, even if Thomson is right that the discovery sought 

will take longer than the Special Master suggested, that does not 

fatally undermine Judge Walker's recommendation. After all, based 

on their motion to extend the discovery deadline, DAPs appear to 

believe that the discovery at issue here can be completed within 

sixty days of the signature date of this order. See Deadline Mot. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 18 of 23
19 

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

For the Northern District of California 

at 4. Thomson has offered no suggestions as to how long would be 

necessary to review and produce the documents at issue here, aside 

from saying that granting DAPs' requests will push discovery 

"months past the September 5, 2014 deadline," and "make it 

extremely difficult . . . to prepare for a March 2015 trial." Obj. 

at 4. Thomson's complaints about the challenges of translation and 

the size of the necessary productions are well met, but tempered by 

the fact that Thomson's production to date of 15,799 documents is 

paltry in the context of this large and complex case. See Benson 

Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 (comparing Thomson's production with the approximately 

1.2 million documents produced by all defendants). Finally, even 

if the discovery at issue here is burdensome, Rule 26 once again 

recognizes that the burden of discovery must be weighed against its 

likely benefit. Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). As the Court has 

repeatedly found, these materials are essential for DAPs' case 

against Thomson. Accordingly, even considering the burdens of 

production on Thomson, the Court finds they are offset by the 

benefits of permitting this discovery. 

3. Conclusion 

 Having considered Thomson's objections to the Special Master's 

report and recommendations, the objection is DENIED. Accordingly, 

DAPs' motion to compel is GRANTED. 

B. Remaining Motions 

 Having rejected Thomson's objections, two issues remain: 

First, DAPs' motions for the issuance of letters of request, and 

second, DAPs' motion to extend the discovery deadline. 

 The Court believes that DAPs' motions for the issuance of 

letters of request may be denied as moot. However, the record is 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 19 of 23
20 

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

For the Northern District of California 

not sufficiently clear for the Court to do so at this time. For 

instance, in DAPs' motion to compel before the Special Master, DAPs 

appear to seek only documents and perhaps just one Rule 30(b)(6) 

deponent. R&R at 2. Nonetheless DAPs' motion for the issuance of 

letters of request seeks depositions of four witnesses. 

Accordingly, within five (5) days of the signature date of this 

order, Sharp is ORDERED to file a statement of not more than four 

(4) pages explaining whether it wishes to continue to press its 

motions for the issuance of letters of request. If Sharp does not 

file the statement within five days, the Court will deny the 

motions for letters of request as moot. 

 Turning finally to Sharp's motion for an extension of the 

discovery deadline, the Court finds that Sharp and DAPs have 

diligently pursued discovery against Thomson and good cause exists 

to extend the discovery deadline. As the Ninth Circuit has 

observed, scheduling orders may be modified for good cause, and any 

analysis of good cause focuses "on the moving party's reasons for 

seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry 

should end." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court has previously 

observed that "centering the good cause analysis on the moving 

party's diligence prevents parties from profiting from 

carelessness, unreasonability, or gamesmanship, while also not 

punishing parties for circumstances outside their control." ECF 

No. 2877 ("Cal. AG Discover Order"), at 5 (citing Orozco v. Midland 

Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02585-KJM-CKD, 2013 WL 3941318, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)). 

 Ultimately, the diligence inquiry comes down to two questions. 

First, did Sharp and DAPs unreasonably delay in seeking this 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 20 of 23
21 

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

For the Northern District of California 

discovery given that they knew or should have known of the 

potential relevance of this discovery earlier? Second, did DAPs 

act diligently after discovering Thomson's position on the 

applicability of the French Blocking Statute? ECF No. 2554 

("Thomson Discovery Stip.") at 4 (emphasis added). 

 First, in Thomson's view, "it is undisputed that the DAPs knew 

of the potential relevance of" certain witnesses "no later than 

August 2013," yet failed to seek deposition testimony from them 

until much later. However, as the Court noted earlier, discovery 

of Thomson was stayed for much of that time, and it appears that 

DAPs specifically inquired as to the status of several of the 

witnesses at issue on April 11, 2014, approximately a month after 

the discovery stay was lifted. Benson Decl. at Ex. 8. Moreover, 

also approximately a month after discovery of Thomson began, DAPs 

served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Thomson SA. Id. at Ex. 

25. Similarly, the requests for production at issue here were also 

promulgated in April 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 20. Because Sharp and 

the other DAPs were pursing the witnesses and materials at issue at 

an early date, the Court finds that Sharp and the other DAPs acted 

diligently in seeking the discovery at issue here. 

 Similarly, the Court cannot find a lack of diligence in DAPs' 

failure to pursue Hague Convention procedures earlier, or to 

otherwise seek judicial resolution of the parties' dispute about 

the applicability of the French Blocking Statute. Thomson argues 

that DAPs "have known since, at the very latest, May 14, 2014," 

that Thomson interpreted the French Blocking Statute to bar 

production of the documents and witnesses DAPs seek. Deadline 

Opp'n at 5. But the record shows that within thirteen days of 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 21 of 23
22 

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

For the Northern District of California 

receiving Thomson's objections, DAPs sought to meet and confer 

regarding this and other issues and the parties' attempts to 

resolve their dispute continued for almost two months. See Benson 

Decl. ¶¶ 33-41. After that meet and confer process was completed, 

DAPs filed the motion to compel before Judge Walker within days. 

Given Thomson's prior suggestion that it would work to produce 

documents and witnesses without demanding Hague Convention 

procedures where possible, the Court cannot fault DAPs for 

proceeding as they did. Furthermore, the Court certainly cannot 

conclude DAPs were not diligently pursuing discovery when they 

were, in fact, making an effort to resolve these issues without 

pursuing them before the Special Master or the Court. 

 Because the Court finds that Sharp and the other DAPs 

proceeded diligently in pursuing discovery against Thomson and good 

cause exists for an extension of the discovery deadline to permit 

document discovery and depositions to go forward, Sharp's motion to 

extend the discovery deadline to permit taking additional discovery 

from Thomson SA and Thomson Consumer is GRANTED. The cutoff of 

discovery with Thomson will therefore be extended sixty (60) days 

from the signature date of this order. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 The Court ORDERS as follows: 

 Thomson's objection to the Special Master's report and 

recommendation regarding DAPs' motion to compel is 

DENIED. 

 DAPs' motion to compel is GRANTED. 

 Sharp is ORDERED to file within five (5) days of the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 22 of 23
23 

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

For the Northern District of California 

signature date of this order, a statement of not more 

than four (4) pages explaining whether it wishes to 

continue to press its motions for the issuance of 

letters of request. If Sharp does not file the 

statement within five days, the Court will deny the 

motions for letters of request as moot. 

 DAPs' motion to extend time for the taking of 

discovery from Thomson SA and Thomson Consumer is 

GRANTED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: October 23, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2945 Filed 10/23/14 Page 23 of 23