Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-498/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

ALL DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS 

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

THOMSON CONSUMER 

ELECTRONICS, INC.’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE “ALLCRT” CONSPIRACY LIABILITY

Defendant Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (“Thomson” or “Thomson Consumer”) 

has filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence for a 

jury to find it liable for conspiracy to fix the price of cathode display tubes (“CDTs”), one of the 

types of cathode ray tubes at issue in this case.

1

 ECF No. 2981 (motion). The motion is fully 

briefed. ECF Nos. 3236 (opposition), 3506-4 (supplemental opposition),23603 (reply). The 

Court held oral argument on February 23, 2016. See ECF No. 4454 (transcript) at 76-88. The 

Court denies the motion. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual history is well known to the parties and has been recited in the Court’s prior 

orders. By way of summation, this case is predicated on an alleged conspiracy to price-fix cathode 

ray tubes (“CRTs”), a core component of tube-style screens for common devices including 

 

1

Thomson Consumer originally brought claims under both the Sherman Act and New York’s 

Donnelly Act. The Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs”) have since dismissed their Donnelly Act 

claims with prejudice. ECF No. 3603 at 1 n.1. Accordingly, only the DAPs’ Sherman Act claims 

against Thomson Consumer remain before the Court. 

2 Discovery was incomplete when briefs were first due, so the DAPs were allowed to file a 

supplemental brief pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

televisions and computer monitors. This conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 

2007 (the “Conspiracy Period”), involved many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and 

allegedly resulted in overcharges of billions of U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased 

and sold CRTs or products containing CRTs. A civil suit was originally filed in 2007, ECF No. 1, 

consolidated by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shortly thereafter, see ECF No. 122, 

assigned as a Multidistrict Litigation case (“MDL”) to Judge Samuel Conti, see id., and ultimately 

transferred to the undersigned, see ECF No. 4162. In addition to two class actions, this MDL 

involves various direct actions from individual plaintiffs who opted out of the class actions, 

including the DAPs that oppose the present motion.

A CRT is a funnel-shaped glass device that translates electronic video signals into visual 

images. There are at least two different types of CRTs – cathode display tubes (“CDTs”) and 

cathode picture tubes (“CPTs”). CDTs are used in computer monitors and similar devices and 

typically yield a higher resolution image than a CPT because computer monitors are viewed at a 

close distance. CPTs are used primarily in televisions and produce a brighter image than CDTs 

because the images displayed on a television are typically moving pictures viewed from a greater 

distance. 

Because CDTs and CPTs were used in different products and had different customers, CDTs 

and CPTs competed in different markets. The products were not demand-side substitutes. Demandside substitution takes place when consumers (or in this case, manufacturers) switch from one 

product to another in response to a change in the relative prices of the products. A producer of 

finished CRT products seeking to reduce its costs could not switch from CDTs to CPTs, or vice-versa. 

Specific to the instant motion, Thomson SA is the French parent corporation of Thomson 

Consumer. Thomson SA is not a party to the instant motion. Thomson Consumer does not admit 

that it was involved in a CPT-conspiracy to price-fix monitor components for televisions, but 

effectively concedes that no motion for summary judgment based on absence of evidence of 

liability is appropriate for a CPT-conspiracy. ECF No. 2981 at 1 n.1. Thomson does, however, 

bring a motion challenging its involvement with any CDT-conspiracy to price-fix monitor 

components for computers. Thomson claims that the conspiracies to fix the prices of CDTs and 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

CPTs were separate and unrelated. 

The parties agree that Thomson never purchased, manufactured, or sold any CDT product 

directly. They dispute, however, whether Thomson had an interest or role in, or otherwise 

benefitted from involvement in any CDT conspiracy ‒ or the overall CRT conspiracy insofar as 

the overall CRT conspiracy included both CDTs and CPTs.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when a “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); 

accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). “A party asserting that a fact 

cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by” citing to depositions, documents, 

affidavits, or other materials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party also may show that such 

materials “do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party 

cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). An issue is 

“genuine” only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). A fact is 

“material” if the fact may affect the outcome of the case. Id. at 248. “In considering a motion for 

summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, and 

is required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Freeman v. 

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997). However, unsupported conjecture or conclusory 

statements do not create a genuine dispute as to material fact and will not defeat summary

judgment. Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008). 

For claims on which the defendant does not carry the ultimate burden of persuasion, 

defendant as the moving party has the burden of producing evidence that negates an essential 

element of each claim on which it seeks judgment or showing that the plaintiff cannot produce 

evidence sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof at trial. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. 

Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party satisfies its initial burden of 

production, then the nonmoving party must produce admissible evidence to show that a genuine 

issue of material fact exists. Id. at 1102-1103. The non-moving party must “identify with 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 

F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. DISCUSSION

Thomson Consumer implicitly concedes that a jury must decide whether it is liable for 

fixing the price of CPTs. The question posed by this motion is whether it should avoid liability for 

the effects of the alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of CDTs. In other words, when a defendant’s 

liability for the effects of one conspiracy are clearly at issue, when may it also potentially be liable 

for the effects of a related conspiracy? Or, phrased slightly differently, when may a plaintiff 

proceed on the theory that two (at least nominally) separate conspiracies were actually one? 

A. In Re Vitamins

Although the Ninth Circuit has not articulated the relevant legal standard, the parties agree 

that this Court should apply the test laid out in the District of the District of Columbia’s decision 

in In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). Applying the test articulated 

by that court, to prevail at trial on their claims for CDT-related damages, the DAPs must show 

that:

1. Thomson Consumer had knowledge of an “all-[CRT]” conspiracy;

2. Thomson Consumer intended to join the “all-[CRT]” conspiracy; and 

3. By joining the “all-[CRT]” conspiracy, Thomson Consumer and the other 

members of the conspiracy were interdependent upon one another, in that their 

respective benefit depended on the success of the “all-[CRT]” venture.

In re Vitamins, 320 F. Supp. 2d at 15. The Court will refer to these factors as “knowledge,” 

“intent,” and “interdependence,” respectively.

The burden on the DAPs to show that Thomson Consumer “knew of and possibly 

participated in an all-[CRT] conspiracy” is “very low.” Id. at 20. “Although plaintiffs must show 

that [Thomson Consumer] had knowledge of an agreement as to the overall conspiracy, they need 

not show (1) evidence of a formal agreement, or (2) knowledge, on behalf of [Thomson 

Consumer], of every detail of the alleged conspiracy.” Id. The DAPs also do not need to provide 

direct evidence of the conspiracy. Id. (citing United States v. Consol. Packaging Corp., 575 F.2d 

117, 126 (7th Cir. 1978) (“a common purpose and plan may be inferred from a development and a 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

collocation of the circumstances”) (internal quotation omitted).

A discussion of the evidence in In re Vitamins is helpful. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged 

that the defendants “conspired to artificially inflate the price of certain vitamins and vitamin 

products, allocate shares of the vitamin market, predetermine sales volume in the vitamin industry, 

eliminate competition from non-co-conspirators, limit supply, and allocate specific customers 

among themselves and their co-conspirators” in the markets for several vitamin markets. 320 F. 

Supp. 2d at 5. Four defendants moved for summary judgment that they should be liable only with 

respect to the conspiracy to fix the price of choline chloride (vitamin B4), for which they did not 

contest liability for summary judgment purposes. Id. at 10. They alleged, however, that the 

choline chloride conspiracy was separate from the conspiracy to fix the prices of other vitamins, 

and that there was not ‒ or at least, was not as to the moving defendants ‒ an “all-vitamin” 

conspiracy. 

The Court denied summary judgment as to three of the four defendants based on evidence 

similar to that before the Court here. With regard to defendant DuCoa, for example, the plaintiffs 

satisfied their burden based on just two documents, one showing an “overall market review” on an 

agenda for a meeting DuCoa attended and the other showing an agenda for meetings where there 

might be an opportunity to share plans. Id. at 21-22. Neither document showed that the meetings 

actually took place or what was said. For a second defendant, Bioproducts, plaintiffs carried their 

burden by providing information about two meetings and notes from one of those meetings that 

indicated knowledge by a single employee who had no designated position within the company. 

The employee realized that a competitor was trying to “push vitamin and choline prices up to 

achieve acceptable profitability[,]” recognized that “everything was interrelated,” and 

recommended Bioproducts establish annual meetings to remain looped into “both vitamin and 

choline world perspectives.” Id. at 22. For a third defendant, Chinook, plaintiffs carried their 

burden against the company with testimony by a single employee who had no designated position 

in the company. The employee heard a suggestion that America adopt the European “cartel type 

business” in the vitamins market and later learned Europe had a cartel with respect to vitamins

generally. Id. at 23. The company then joined a conspiracy (allegedly) specific to only choline 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

with this knowledge. This created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to satisfy the threepronged test and thus deny summary judgment. Id. On the other hand, the Court granted 

summary judgment as to defendant UCB, where the only documentary evidence showed that UCB 

engaged in pro-competitive conduct ‒ that is, negotiating with a supplier (and alleged coconspirator) to obtain the lowest possible price on choline. 

With this background, the Court now turns to the evidence the DAPs submitted in 

opposition to the motion, and finds it sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact.

3

 

B. Evaluation of Specific Evidence

1. DAP Ex. 19

Exhibit 19 is an email exchange between Jacquelyn Taylor-Boggs of Thomson Consumer4

and Didier Trutt of Thomson SA regarding whether subsidiary Thomson Guangdong Displays 

Co., Ltd. (“TGDC”) should attend a “sourcing dialogue” meeting with Thomson competitor 

Samsung SDI (“SDI”) “to exchange relevant subject matter.” See ECF No. 3236-24 (“DAP Ex. 

19”). Although Taylor-Boggs advises that she told TGDC personnel “absolutely no price 

discussions,” she goes on to say that she was “not sure if [SDI] are trying to overcome shortages 

or just get more Thomson business info, or just benchmarking organization size and structure.” 

Trutt responds that SDI “will be looking for all info they can get (benchmark, structure, cost, 

suppliers, pdt intro . . .) and my guess they are not doing it only with us” and suggests that 

Thomson 

should identify what we could get from this meeting, knowledge they have and we 

don't for eg on CDT, on SDI organization in China (sourcing, sales . . . their view 

of cost driver up and down on the market (oil, gaz [sic], capacity consolidation) 

cost squeeze well prepared we could learn few things provided we know in advance 

how we will make use of the info.

Id. (ellipses in original). 

The most reasonable inference to be drawn from this document is that Thomson ‒ 

 

3

This order discusses only some of the exhibits submitted by the DAPs. In light of the Court’s 

resolution of the motion, it is not necessary to discuss each of them. 

4

The record shows that Taylor-Boggs was an employee of Thomson Consumer. See Supp. Opp’n 

at 4 n.8; ECF No. 3236-21 at 3 (“DAP Ex. 16” at 35:7-23).

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

including defendant Thomson Consumer ‒ was interested in the market for CDTs and was 

prepared to discuss that market with competitors. Although Thomson Consumer did not 

manufacture or sell CDTs or CDT products, it had reason to be interested in the impact of the 

CDT market on the supply of glass, which is a crucial component of both CDTs and CPTs. At her 

deposition, Thomson Consumer 30(b)(6) witness Meggan Ehret acknowledged that the CDT 

market was relevant for Thomson SA and those of its subsidiaries involved in the CPT business, 

so that they could assess, and stay informed regarding, the supply of glass. ECF No. 3506-7 

(Ehret Depo.) 657:1-19. And at oral argument, Thomson Consumer acknowledged that if there 

were a conspiracy in the CDT market to maintain prices, that by definition would have the effect 

of reducing the production of that good, and that would free up glass for use in the CPT market. 

ECF 4454 at 79.

Of course, one would expect any manufacturer to stay on top of the market for its 

important inputs. There is nothing wrong with Thomson Consumer seeking public information 

about the glass market. A reasonable construction of Exhibit 19, however, is that Thomson 

Consumer obtained confidential information from its competitor about their activities in a related 

product market as a way of gathering that information. This is evidence of knowledge, intent, and 

interdependence. 

2. DAP Ex. 22

The DAPs’ Exhibit 22 is an email to several persons, including Tom Carson, the head of 

Thomson Consumer’s CPT operations, from Gilles Taldu at Thomson Multi-Media. The subject 

line is “Korea meeting - Oct. 2000[.]” See ECF No. 3236-27 at 2 (“DAP Ex. 22” at 2). The 

document begins by noting the trip was “meaningful” and “many things have changed since [the 

author’s] trip last year. And also interesting alongside discussions with Philips. Here are my 

conclusions.” The email mainly discusses CPTs, but expressly states that there is “[s]till growth 

expected for CDT, despite LCD: from 115M units in 2000 to 150M in 2004.” DAP Ex. 22 at 4. 

Taldu also states that “Koreans are much more open to discussions/partnership” and that meeting 

participants will “[b]uild a lobbying case towards glass makers (and statistics offices) in order to 

release their reluctance for additional glass capacity.” In essence, a Thomson Consumer employee 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

was made aware of an exchange of information between various competitors (who manufactured 

both CDTs and CPTs) as to the future growth of the CDT market. 

Defendant argues that the Korea meeting was nothing more than a report on attendance at 

the Electronics Industry Association of Korea (“EIAK”) convention, a meeting of members of the 

European Electronics Components Association (“EECA”), of which Thomson SA was a member. 

See Reply at 3-4. Defendant’s construction ignores the email’s references to explicit discussions 

about cooperation with regard to glass production, and puts the most benign gloss on the 

references to total CDT production. Defendant’s construction may be tenable, but on this 

summary judgment motion, the Court is required to construe the document in the light most 

favorable to the DAPs. Particularly given the other evidence the DAPs have submitted, this 

document is evidence of knowledge, intent, and interdependence. 

3. DAP Ex. 24

Exhibit 24 is a March 1, 2005 email from Thomson SA employee Xavier Bonjour to other 

employees in the Thomson corporate family, including Taylor-Boggs. ECF No. 3236-29 (“DAP 

Ex. 24”); Opp’n at 7 n.21. In it, Bonjour summarized information he gathered “[d]uring a short 

meeting with my counterpart at SDI,” ECF No. 3236-29 at 2, including the following: 

 SDI Berlin’s 2004 profit was $20,000,000 and SDI Hungary’s profit was 

$40,000,000, but “profit went down by 50% in H2” and “[s]ituation worsening 

rapidly in Hi-05.” 

 “SDI will close at least one line in [B]erlin Ql-2006. They are considering to shut 

down the whole factory at the same time. Final decision to be taken in Q3-05.”

 “SDI has started restructuring in Korea. They are shutting down one CDT line in 

their Suwon factory this quarter and the whole factory by the year end. Then they 

plan to shut down one line a year.” 

 “Asset amortization brought down to 5 years in China in Q4-04.”

Id. The memorandum also contains much other confidential and non-public information that 

appears to relate to the CPT market. 

This document helps satisfy the In re Vitamins test. It shows that Thomson SA personnel 

shared non-public, competitive information with Thomson Consumer regarding both the CPT and 

CDT markets. In the absence of an “all-CRT” conspiracy, SDI had no legitimate reason to discuss 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

CDT sales with Thomson given Thomson’s absence from the CDT market. This email suggests 

there was improper information sharing between Thomson SA and Samsung SDI, and that 

Thomson SA passed that information along to Thomson Consumer. 

4. DAP Ex. 32 

Exhibit 32 is a memorandum from R.K. Lorch copied to J.R. Hirschler, an employee of 

Thomson Consumer. See Opp’n at 9 n.31; ECF No. 3236-36 (“DAP Ex. 32”). The memorandum 

discusses “South American Market Status[.]” In its discussion of the situation in Brazil, it states 

that: 

[t]o reduce Samsung competition Philips paid Samsung $26 Million

to convert their 2 lines in Manaus to make mostly CDT and reduce 

CPT price pressure. Samsung full capacity is 4.0M units with a 

product range of 14” - 20” CDT and 19V CPT. The old idea of 

consortium for Tubes/Glass capacity increases has been abolished 

by BNDES. TMM/ATO[5]face an uphill challenge in 2000 and 

thereafter due to the monopolistic practices of Philips with their 

heavy concentration of tube/glass capacity coupled with a weakened 

and “bribed” Samsung making mostly CDT. Philips is undercutting 

Thomson pricing . . . . Of course at the same time we are raising 

price [sic] and reducing terms.

DAP Ex. 32 (emphasis in original). The reference to a “consortium” is evidence of a collusive 

relationship among some of the producers of CDTs. The exhibit is also clear that Philips “bribed” 

SDI to reduce the latter’s capacity to produce CDTs and “reduce CPT price pressure.” This is 

anticompetitive behavior. That Thomson Consumer received this information helps satisfy the 

Vitamin test ‒ not only by showing knowledge of the all-CRT conspiracy and intent to join it, but 

by demonstrating the effect on Thomson Consumer as it relates to “glass capacity.” Moreover, 

Thomson recognizes that its prices were being undercut yet it is “at the same time raising 

price[s]” ‒ behavior that makes no sense in a competitive world. 

5. DAP Exhibit 50

Exhibit 50 is an email from Thomson Consumer employee Taylor-Boggs to Trutt. ECF 

No. 3506-9. In it, Taylor-Boggs notes that an attachment (which is not included in the exhibit) “is 

the latest presentation we received from Asahi to forecast the CPT and CDT market.” Id. at 2 

 

5

“TMM” is Thomson Multimedia, part of Thomson SA. ATO is part of Thomson Consumer.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 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

Northern District of California

(emphasis added). Taylor-Boggs also states that “[g]lass supply is tight as new investments go

towards flat panel production, mask invar is declining in production, and more suppliers are

consolidating plants.” Id. at 1. Again, Thomson Consumer received information about CDTs, and 

a reasonable inference is that it did so because it wanted information about the glass supply. This 

document is evidence regarding the knowledge and interdependence prongs of the In re Vitamins

test. 

C. Considering the Exhibits Collectively

Viewing the DAPs’ evidence as a whole,6the Court finds that the DAPs have submitted 

sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact regarding whether there was an “allCRT” conspiracy, with respect each prong of the In re Vitamins test. 

CONCLUSION

Thomson Consumer’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

6

See supra n.3. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4937 Filed 10/06/16 Page 10 of 10