Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420-55/pdf.json

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 13-md-02420-YGR (DMR)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 677

Plaintiffs and Defendant Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) filed a joint letter brief on 

March 11, 2015 regarding a dispute about Toshiba’s production of worldwide transaction-level 

sales data for lithium ion battery cells and packs. [Docket No. 677 (Joint Letter).] The court finds 

that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b).

I. Background

On November 14, 2014, the court issued an order regarding discovery. Among other 

things, it ordered Defendants to immediately begin producing transactional data regarding sales of 

lithium ion battery cells and packs (“transaction-level sales data”) on a rolling basis, and set 

February 27, 2015 as the deadline for the completion of the production of such data. [Docket No. 

555.] It also set a briefing and hearing schedule for disputes about three categories of information. 

The joint discovery letter on any dispute regarding the geographic scope of transaction-level sales 

data was due by December 2, 2014. 

On December 2, 2014, Plaintiffs and Defendant groups Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony, NEC, and 

GS Yuasa (the “objecting Defendants”) submitted a joint letter setting forth their dispute regarding 

the production of worldwide transaction-level sales data. [Docket No. 590 (Dec. 2, 2014 Letter).] 

The parties’ dispute centered around those Defendants’ objections to the production of such data 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 710 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Northern District of California

on the bases of relevance and burden. In the letter, Plaintiffs represented that 

Defendants/Defendant groups Samsung, LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell, and Toshiba Corp. (the “nonobjecting Defendants”) had agreed to produce worldwide transaction-level sales data. (Dec. 2, 

2014 Letter 1.) In a supplemental statement filed on December 16, 2014, the parties set forth the 

following agreement between Plaintiffs and Toshiba:

Toshiba Corp. will produce its worldwide transaction-level sales and 

cost data for lithium ion battery cells and packs for the period 1997 

to 2007, at which time Toshiba Corp. stopped delivering those 

products. Toshiba Corp. also will produce United States 

transaction-level sales and cost data for lithium ion battery cells and 

packs from its United States affiliate, Toshiba America Electronic 

Components, Inc. (“TAEC”), for the period 1997 to 2004, at which 

time TAEC stopped selling those products. The sales databases for 

Toshiba Corp. and TAEC also contain certain cost data for lithium 

ion battery cells and packs, which Toshiba Corp. will produce. 

Toshiba Corp. has not placed geographic restrictions on its 

production of transactional sales data. Toshiba Corp. will 

provide Plaintiffs with information sufficient to show the meaning 

of various codes and fields within the transactional data. Toshiba 

Corp. expects to produce the majority of its data in December 2014 

and to complete its production in January 2015.

[Docket No. 606 (Statement re Agreements) 2-3 (emphasis added).] 

The court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ worldwide data dispute with the objecting 

Defendants on December 18, 2014. It issued an order on December 23, 2014 stating that the nonobjecting Defendants, including Toshiba, had “agreed to produce worldwide transaction-level (i.e., 

non-aggregated) data . . . where available.” [Docket No. 624 (Dec. 23, 2014 Order) 1 n.1.] As to 

the worldwide data dispute, the court held that “data relating to sales to foreign companies of cells 

and packs incorporated into finished products that were neither sold in the United States nor 

destined for United States buyers” was irrelevant and stated that “[a]n Objecting Defendant need 

not produce sales or cost data related to these ‘foreign finished products’ if the Objecting 

Defendant can demonstrate that the data meets the court’s definition.” (Dec. 23, 2014 Order 2.) It 

set a schedule for Plaintiffs and certain Objecting Defendants to complete the meet and confer 

process by January 29, 2015 and to file any joint letter regarding outstanding disputes by February 

9, 2015. (Dec. 23, 2014 Order 3-4.)

On February 27, 2015, the last day to complete production of transaction-level sales data,

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 710 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Northern District of California

Toshiba for the first time informed Plaintiffs that it was “not producing internal sales data 

regarding [lithium ion batteries] used in finished products that were neither sold in the United 

States nor destined for United States buyers.” (Joint Letter 1.) Plaintiffs now move to compel 

Toshiba to produce this data.

II. Discussion

Toshiba has withheld “information regarding Toshiba’s internal sales of batteries where 

the Toshiba-affiliated entity was located abroad and where the battery was not for use in a finished 

product that was sold in the United States nor destined for United States buyers.” (Joint Letter 6.) 

It argues that it need not produce “data that the Court had already determined to be irrelevant,” and 

that the production of irrelevant information is an “inherently undue burden.” (Joint Letter 6-8.) 

Toshiba asks the court to weigh the burden of producing the information against the need for the 

information in the case.

Plaintiffs argue that Toshiba’s refusal to produce certain sales data violates its previous 

agreement to produce data without any geographic restrictions and representations regarding the 

same to the court, as well as the December 23, 2014 order placing the burden on the Objecting 

Defendants to demonstrate that data met the court’s definition of “foreign finished products” in 

order to withhold it from production. The court agrees. The court heard argument on the 

Objecting Defendants’ relevance and burden objections at the December 18, 2014 hearing. At no 

point during that hearing did Toshiba join the dispute, assert objections, or state that it would 

withhold data contrary to its express representations to Plaintiffs and the court. The court 

subsequently set a schedule for the parties to meet and confer and submit remaining disputes to the 

court for resolution. Again, at no point did Toshiba seek to participate in that process. Toshiba 

does not offer any justification for why it waited until the end of February to notify Plaintiffs of its 

position, only stating that “the existence of irrelevant sales within Toshiba’s internal sales data 

was something that had only come to light shortly before the production.” (Joint Letter 7.) Yet 

Toshiba did not seek relief from the court. Instead, on the deadline by which all worldwide 

transaction-level sales data was to be produced, Toshiba unilaterally declared that it would not 

produce data that it had determined met the court’s definition of “foreign finished products.” The 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 710 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Northern District of California

court finds that Toshiba’s objections to producing certain data on relevance and burden grounds 

are untimely and are overruled. 

III. Conclusion

An agreement is an agreement. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Toshiba to produce all of its 

worldwide transaction-level sales data for lithium ion battery cells and packs is GRANTED. 

Toshiba shall complete its production of such data in accordance with its December 16, 2014 

representations within fourteen days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2015

________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 710 Filed 04/01/15 Page 4 of 4