Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-104/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

ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL 

MASTER'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

SUBPOENA

This Order Relates To:

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL 

ASSISTANCE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1782 TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR 

USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 22, 2012, the Special Master in the above-captioned

matter (the "MDL") issued his Report and Recommendation regarding a 

subpoena by Sharp Corporation ("Sharp"). ECF No. 1415 ("R&R"). 

Underlying the R&R are Defendants' Motion to Quash, ECF No. 1327 

("Mot. to Quash") and Sharp's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 1340 ("Mot. 

to Compel"). The MDL defendants relevant to the instant matter 

("Defendants"), too numerous to list here, appear at Mot. to Quash 

1 n.1. Now before the Court is the joint motion of Defendants and 

non-party Saveri & Saveri, Inc. ("Saveri") to adopt the R&R. The

matter is fully briefed and appropriate for resolution without oral 

argument. ECF No. 1426 ("Mot. to Adopt R&R"); ECF No. 1430 ("Obj.

to R&R"). For the reasons explained below, the Court ADOPTS the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 10
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

R&R, GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Quash, and DENIES Sharp's Motion 

to Compel.1 

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Sharp Corporation ("Sharp") is a manufacturer of 

electronics products, currently pursuing an antitrust case similar 

to the MDL in South Korea (the "Korean Litigation"). R&R at 2. 

Defendants are a group of electronics producers, all of whom are 

defendants in the MDL and some of whom are also defendants in the 

Korean Litigation. Id. at 3. Non-party Saveri is class counsel 

for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPP(s)"), a group of 

plaintiffs involved in the MDL. Id. at 2. 

The Korean Litigation concerns an alleged antitrust conspiracy 

that involves only Korean cathode ray tube manufacturers and 

suppliers, and only sales taking place outside the United States. 

Sharp has not yet pursued discovery in Korean courts for the Korean 

Litigation. R&R at 2-4. Instead it first requested a subpoena 

from this Court to obtain documents from Saveri under 28 U.S.C. §

1782, which permits district courts to order production of 

documents or other materials to foreign tribunals. Id. at 2. 

Sharp's subpoena demands that Saveri produce all discovery related 

to the DPP action of the MDL, because Sharp believes information 

relevant to the Korean Litigation could be found in those 

materials.

2 Id. Defendants and Saveri both objected to the 

 

1 Because the Court decides this motion without considering Sharp's 

request for extra briefing, Sharp's motion for leave to file a 

reply to Saveri's opposition to Sharp's objection, ECF No. 1456, is 

DENIED AS MOOT.

2 Sharp has since narrowed the scope of the subpoena to include 

only documents produced by MDL Defendants in the United States, and 

to exclude documents produced by plaintiffs or third parties. Mot. 

to Compel at 2-3. Saveri maintains that that production of these 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 10
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

subpoena, Defendants moved to quash it, Sharp moved to compel 

compliance, and the Special Master heard their arguments on 

September 20, 2012. Id. at 1-2. The Special Master recommended 

that Defendants' motion to quash be granted and that Sharp's motion 

to compel be denied, because he deemed § 1782 assistance 

unwarranted. Id. at 1-6. Saveri and Defendants now ask the Court 

to adopt the R&R. Mot. to Adopt R&R at 1. Sharp objects, arguing 

that the Special Master made critical legal and factual errors and 

therefore abused his discretion. Obj. to R&R at 1.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standard of Review for the R&R

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)-(4); 

ECF No. 302 ("Order Appointing Special Master") ¶ 18 (parties 

stipulated to "clear error" standard for factual findings).

B. Section 1782

Title 28, Section 1782(a) of the United States Code states in 

relevant part that "[a] district court of the district in which a 

person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or 

statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a 

proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." The Court's 

decision to grant or deny this assistance is discretionary. Intel 

Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 257 (2004). 

///

 

documents would be burdensome and time-consuming for its small 

staff. ECF No. 1353 ("Opp. to Mot. to Compel").

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 10
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

The Supreme Court provided four factors to aid district courts 

in deciding whether to grant § 1782 applications: (1) whether the 

person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the 

foreign proceeding; (2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the 

character of the foreign proceedings, and the receptivity of the 

foreign government to receiving United States federal-court 

judicial assistance; (3) whether the § 1782 request conceals an 

attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other 

policies of that country or the United States; and (4) whether the 

requests are unduly intrusive or burdensome. Id. at 264-65. 

The Supreme Court also settled an earlier division among lower

courts, holding that § 1782 includes no "foreign-discoverability 

rule," meaning that the statute does not bar district courts from 

ordering production of documents simply because they would be 

unobtainable if located in the foreign jurisdiction. Id. at 259-

63. 

IV. DISCUSSION

The parties do not dispute that Sharp is statutorily permitted 

to seek discovery assistance under § 1782. Their dispute concerns 

whether Sharp adequately showed, under the Intel factors, that its 

request is warranted. Sharp argues that the Special Master's 

recommendations under the four Intel factors are based on factual 

and legal errors, thereby vitiating his discretion.3

 

3 Sharp also makes a very general claim that the Special Master's 

taking note of Sharp's decisions to bring a case in Korea and to 

opt out of the DPP class of the MDL is evidence of a pervasive 

factual error in the R&R that affects each Intel factor. Sharp 

goes no further with that point in its argument sections, leaving 

this allegation vague. See Objection to R&R at 2. In any event, 

the Court finds no reversible error on this point.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 10
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

A. The First Intel Factor

The first Intel factor states that "when the person from whom 

discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding 

. . . the need for § 1782(a) aid is generally not as apparent as it 

ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the 

matter arising abroad." 542 U.S. at 264. The Supreme Court's 

concern here was that evidence from nonparticipants might be

unobtainable in the foreign jurisdiction absent § 1782 aid. Id.

Sharp argues that the Special Master erred in finding that the 

first factor weighed against § 1782 assistance, because Saveri is 

not a party to either litigation. Obj. to R&R at 9. The Special 

Master found that, despite Saveri's non-party status, it is obvious 

that Sharp actually seeks information about Defendants, some of 

whom are subject to Korean discovery rules as parties to the Korean 

Litigation. R&R at 4. The Special Master further found that Sharp 

has discovery options available to it in Korea, despite its 

protestations that it does not, the critical point being that Sharp 

has not availed itself of them. R&R at 4. None of these 

conclusions is mistaken or otherwise in error. The Court finds 

that the Special Master made no reversible errors under the first 

Intel factor.

B. The Second Intel Factor

The second Intel factor states that a district court "may take 

into account the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of 

the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign 

government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court 

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 10
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

judicial assistance." 542 U.S. at 264.

First, Sharp argues that the Special Master improperly imposed 

a foreign-discoverability rule when considering this factor. 

Objection to R&R at 10-11. The Court finds that the Special Master 

did not do so. The Supreme Court described such a rule in Intel as

being an interpretation of § 1782 that would bar ordering 

production of documents on the basis of their not being obtainable

in discovery in the foreign jurisdiction. See 542 U.S. at 259-261. 

However, factors like comity among nations and parity among parties 

can be touchstones in this analysis. See id. at 263-65. The 

Special Master did not reject Sharp's discovery request because he 

thought it would be barred in Korea. He rejected it because he 

found that Sharp had not shown that its request was warranted, and 

other relevant factors like comity and parity also weighed against 

it. See R&R at 4. This conclusion was not in error.

Second, Sharp argues that the Special Master incorrectly 

assigned Sharp the burden of proof to demonstrate the Korean 

court's receptivity to United States discovery materials. Obj. to 

R&R at 11. Sharp cites a series of cases that it claims "[make] 

clear that the burden is on the party opposing the § 1782 discovery 

to demonstrate a lack of receptivity in the foreign court." Id.4 

That claim is not so clear. None of the cases Sharp cites are 

binding on this Court. Further, none of these cases precisely 

 

4 Specifically, Sharp cites Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 

F.3d 1095, 1102 (2d Cir. 1995); In re Application of Apple, Inc., 

No. MISC 12-80013, 2012 WL 1570043, *2 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012); In 

re Gushlak, No. 11-MC-218, 2011 WL 3651268, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 

17, 2011); In re Republic of Ecuador, No. C-10-80225, 2011 WL 

736868, *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); and Cryolife v. Tenaxis 

Medical, Inc., No. C-08-5124, 2009 WL 88348, *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 

2009).

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 6 of 10
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

states which party bears the burden on receptivity. In any event, 

the Special Master's legal conclusions on who bears the burden to 

show receptivity were not central to his decision. Having weighed 

each party's arguments and the facts before him, the Special Master 

simply concluded that the Korean court's receptivity did not 

warrant § 1782 assistance. The Court finds that the Special Master 

made no reversible errors under the second Intel factor.

C. The Third Intel Factor

The third Intel factor states that "a district court could 

consider whether the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to 

circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies 

of a foreign country or the United States." 542 U.S. at 265. 

Courts need not determine that an applicant has exhausted its 

discovery attempts abroad. See Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 

51 F.3d 1095, 1098 (2d Cir. 1995). However, a perception that an 

applicant has "side-stepped" less-than-favorable discovery rules by 

resorting immediately to § 1782 can be a factor in a court's 

analysis. See, e.g., In re Application of Caratube Int'l Oil Co., 

LLP, 730 F. Supp. 2d 101, 107-8 (D.D.C. 2010). 

Sharp again argues that the Special Master applied a foreigndiscoverability rule here. Obj. to R&R at 13. For the reasons 

discussed above, the Court disagrees. See supra, Section IV.B. 

The Court also finds the Seventh Circuit decision cited by Sharp 

inapposite. Id. at 13-14 (citing Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, 

Inc., 633 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011)). Unlike this case, the Seventh 

Circuit decision involved a foreign law specifically barring 

discovery of a particular type of document. See Heraeus, 633 F.3d 

at 597-98. Here, the Special Master found that Sharp had sideCase 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 7 of 10
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

stepped less-than-favorable discovery rules by resorting 

immediately to § 1782, see Caratube, 730 F. Supp. 2d at 107-8, when 

Korean discovery was available. R&R at 4-5. The Special Master 

made no reversible errors under the third Intel factor. 

D. The Fourth Intel Factor

The fourth Intel factor encourages district courts to consider

the burdensomeness of § 1782 requests, stating that "unduly 

intrusive or burdensome requests may be rejected or trimmed." 542 

U.S. at 265. Sharp argues that the Special Master made three 

errors here. Obj. to R&R at 15-17.

First, Sharp claims that the Special Master erred in 

questioning whether case law supported the breadth of Sharp's 

request and speculating about the history and scope of § 1782. Id. 

at 15-16. The Court finds that the Special Master appropriately 

evaluated the facts per the Intel's guidance that district courts 

should consider the burdens and intrusiveness of foreign discovery 

requests. Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. His reasoning was not in error. 

Second, Sharp claims that the Special Master's decision to 

reject Sharp's discovery request instead of simply trimming it was 

in error. Obj. to R&R at 17. But Intel says only that unduly 

intrusive or burdensome requests "may be" rejected or trimmed. 542 

U.S. at 265. They do not have to be.

Third, Sharp claims the Special Master erred in concluding 

that the burden on Saveri to gather and compile the electronic 

discovery record would be unacceptable. Obj. to R&R at 16-17. The 

Special Master found that the burden on Saveri's small team plus 

the collateral burdens and intrusions on defendants in the Korean 

Litigation weighed against Sharp on this factor, regardless of the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 8 of 10
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

facts that the record was maintained on an electronic server and 

Sharp was willing to assist with production. R&R at 5-6. This is 

an appropriate conclusion. Therefore the Special Master made no 

reversible errors under the fourth Intel factor.

E. Additional Factors

Sharp also claims that the Special Master erred in considering 

policy considerations "outside the scope of the statute or the 

Intel factors," like whether Sharp was forum-shopping or whether 

the decision to grant a subpoena might encourage other litigants 

foreign actions to take aim at class counsel instead of pursuing 

discovery abroad. See Objection to R&R at 18-20. To the extent 

that any of these factors were considered separately, the Intel

factors are neither exclusive nor mandatory. They are guidelines, 

and the Special Master did not err in considering additional 

factors he thought appropriate.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 9 of 10
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

V. CONCLUSION

The Special Master made no factual or legal errors in 

considering the Intel factors. Accordingly, the Court does not 

find that the Special Master abused his discretion in issuing the 

R&R. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants' and Saveri & Saveri, 

Inc.'s Motion to Adopt the Special Master's Report and 

Recommendation, APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Special Master's Report and 

Recommendation, GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Quash, DENIES Sharp 

Corporation's Motion to Compel, and DENIES Sharp Corporation's 

Motion for Leave to Reply as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January __, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1534 Filed 01/17/13 Page 10 of 10