Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-347/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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 1 OF 8

Vaughn R Walker 

Law Office of Vaughn R Walker

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 871-2888

Fax: (415) 871-2890

vrw@judgewalker.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs v Mitsubishi 

 MDL No 1917

 

 Master Case No 3:07-cv-05944SC

ORDER RE DIRECT PURCHASER 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

FROM MITSUBISHI 

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 2 OF 8

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) moved for an order requiring the Mitsubishi 

Defendants1(collectively, “Mitsubishi”) to (1) serve original Exhibits A and B to its supplemental 

interrogatory responses, (2) serve complete and verified supplemental responses to 

Interrogatory No 12, including new information and sales figures, (3) make deponents Messrs 

Koji Murata and Masahiko Konishi available for further examination in San Francisco and (4) 

reopen any deposition for which there is new information. The undersigned issued an order on

April 28, 2015, Dkt 3830, granting the first two requests in the DPPs’ motion and granting 

Mitsubishi the opportunity to address the third request. The fourth request remains pending 

and may be updated if the parties are unable to reach agreement after further meeting and 

conferring. On May 26, 2015, Mitsubishi submitted a supplemental letter brief and on June 2,

2015, the DPPs submitted a reply letter brief regarding the outstanding issues.

In the meantime, the undersigned issued an order dated May 28, 2015, Dkt 

3859, granting the DPPs’ separate motion to compel further testimony and evidence of Mr 

Murata based on events occurring during the deposition. On June 10, 2015, Mitsubishi 

submitted a letter requesting consideration of its sur-response, with revised positions on the 

scope of the Murata deposition and other issues. The parties are now negotiating a late June 

date for Mr Murata’s deposition in San Francisco. Currently at issue and addressed in this order 

are the further examination of Messrs Murata and Konishi and the adequacy of Mitsubishi’s 

third supplemental response to the DPPs’ Interrogatory No 12.

The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ supplemental submissions and issues 

the order that follows.

 

1 Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (“MELCO”), Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc (“MEUS”) and Mitsubishi 

Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc (“MEVSA”).

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 3 OF 8

I. Further Deposition of Messrs Murata and Konishi

Mitsubishi originally contended that apart from the further deposition order on 

May 28, there is no need to depose Koji Murata or Masahiko Konishi further because there is 

no new discovery on which to question them. Mitsubishi asserted that: (1) the original Exhibits 

A and B were produced to the DPPs in September 2014, three months before the initial Murata 

and Konishi depositions in December 2014; (2) at their depositions, both Messrs Murata and 

Konishi were questioned extensively about Exhibit B; and (3) no additional sales data exist on 

which to question either witness. The DPPs, in Mitsubishi’s view, had a full and fair opportunity 

to question Messrs Murata and Konishi in December and suffered no prejudice that warrants a 

resumption of their depositions.

According to Mitsubishi, the only discovery that the DPPs lacked when deposing 

Messrs Murata and Konishi in December 2014 was a revised Exhibit B that was provided to the 

DPPs on January 16, 2015 as part of Mitsubishi’s Second Supplemental Responses. 5/26/15 

Fuentes Ltr at 11. Mitsubishi “revised Exhibit B to accommodate the DPPs’ broader requests 

for competitor meetings” since the DPPs’ interrogatory was broader than that of the Direct 

Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs”). Revised Exhibit B identified 22 meetings that were not listed on the 

original Exhibit B. Id. But the DPPs were not prejudiced, according to Mitsubishi, because 

“every one of these meetings is reflected in the documents Mitsubishi Electric had already 

produced to the DPPs” and Messrs Murata and Konishi had been asked about meetings that 

were not on the earlier version of Exhibit B. Id.

Finally, Mitsubishi objected to the further depositions, asserting that requiring 

further depositions of two busy Mitsubishi executives who both live outside the United States, 

would be “costly and unduly burdensome,” that during their depositions, their recollections 

about meetings with other CRT producers had already been exhausted, and both men are 

“essential to their respective business units.” 5/26/15 Fuentes Ltr at 1.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 4 OF 8

The DPPs respond that: (1) Mitsubishi’s revised Exhibit B and second 

supplemental response to Interrogatory 5 “identify over 50 new meetings and contacts” on 

which Messrs Murata and Konishi were not examined during their depositions in December 

2014; (2) the DPPs’ questions regarding competitor meetings without the benefit of documents 

do not foreclose the likelihood that additional meaningful testimony could be elicited using 

information about specific meetings and related documents to refresh the witnesses’ 

recollections; and (3) Mitsubishi’s previous production of underlying documents about the 

additional meetings should not excuse the late production of the January 16, 2015 revised 

Exhibit B because “there have been millions of pages of documents produced in this action in 

several different languages.” 6/2/15 Saveri Ltr at 2.

Based on the parties’ submissions, it appears that the following facts are 

undisputed:

(1) By the December 2014 depositions of Messrs Murata and Konishi, the DPPs 

had an original Exhibit B that Mitsubishi had served in response to the DAPS’ 

First Set of Interrogatories in September 2014 (“original Exhibit B”). 5/26/14 

Fuentes Dec, Ex 2.

(2) On September 17, 2014, in response to the DAPs request, Mitsubishi sent an 

updated Exhibit B containing Bates numbers of the documentary backup to 

the information contained in the original Exhibit B (“9/17/2014 updated 

Exhibit B”). 5/26/14 Fuentes Dec, Ex 3-4. 

(3) On January 16, 2015, Mitsubishi served its supplemental discovery response 

including a revised Exhibit B (“1/16/15 revised Exhibit B”) responsive to the 

DPPs’ discovery requests that were broader than the DAPs’ prior discovery 

requests for which the original Exhibit B and the September 17, 2014 

updated Exhibit B had been prepared. 5/26/15 Fuentes Ltr at 11, 5/26/15 

Fuentes Dec, Ex 14.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 5 OF 8

(4) The January 16, 2015 revised Exhibit B identified at least 22 additional 

meetings and their associated documentary backup in the form of Bates 

numbers that had not been disclosed in the previously produced versions of 

Exhibit B. Compare 5/26/14 Fuentes Dec, Ex 14 with Ex 2 and 4.

(5) By the time of the December 2014 depositions of Messrs Murata and 

Konishi, the DPPs had the September 17, 2014 updated Exhibit B containing 

information about 35 meetings, including Bates numbers for their 

documentary backup.

(6) The DPPs did not have the January 16, 2015 revised Exhibit B and its entries 

describing the 22 additional meetings and associated Bates numbers when 

they deposed Messrs Murata and Konishi in December 2014.

(7) The parties are negotiating the further deposition of Mr Murata in late June 

2015 in response to the May 28, 2015 recommended order of the 

undersigned (Dkt 3859) to which neither party has objected. 6/10/15 

Fuentes Ltr at 1.

Having carefully considered the supplemental submissions (over 1,500 pages), 

the undersigned concludes that having the opportunity to question Messrs Murata and Konishi

using the original Exhibit B may have been useful to the DPPs but it was not sufficient. The 

original Exhibit B had to be supplemented to respond fully to the DPPs’ broader discovery 

requests, as admitted by Mitsubishi. 5/26/15 Fuentes Ltr at 11.

There is no dispute that the January 16, 2015 revised Exhibit B contained 

information about an additional 22 meetings with backup documents by Bates numbers. This 

missing information is substantial in that the 22 additional meetings with competitors and some 

number of new contacts may be highly relevant to key issues or may lead to admissible 

evidence in this MDL. There is no dispute that evidence about Mitsubishi’s meetings with 

competitors during the class period is relevant.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 6 OF 8

In weighing the burdens, the undersigned considers that Mitsubishi’s delayed 

production of relevant discovery responses prevented the DPPs from conducting the full scope 

of their examinations of Messrs Murata and Konishi with information to which they were

entitled under the federal discovery rules. Because Mitsubishi had the DPPs’ First Set of 

Interrogatories by September 4, 2014 and failed to produce a full response with the updated 

Exhibit B until January 16, 2015, after the Murata and Konishi depositions had been conducted 

in December 2014, it is reasonable to place the burden on Mitsubishi to make Messrs Murata

and Konishi available for further deposition in San Francisco. Any burden of international travel 

or time away from important corporate responsibilities suffered by Mitsubishi executives 

should be borne by Mitsubishi for its failure to produce the updated Exhibit B before the 

Murata and Konishi depositions. Mitsubishi and its counsel had knowledge of the scope of the 

DPPs’ interrogatories and could have requested a delay in the depositions pending 

supplementation of discovery or moved for a protective order granting an extension of time. 

Moreover, there is no additional burden with respect to Mr Murata since the 

undersigned has already granted the DPPs’ separate motion to compel his deposition in San 

Francisco. Mitsubishi’s June 10, 2015 Sur-response letter to the undersigned states that it 

“see[s] no reason why Mr. Murata may not also be asked about the January 16 supplemental 

interrogatory response, as well as the sales data information” and that counsel for the parties 

“already have discussed reaching a further agreement on the scope of Mr Murata’s deposition 

in this respect.” 6/10/15 Fuentes Ltr at 1. Mitsubishi requests that after the Murata 

deposition, the parties be heard and then the undersigned may consider whether requiring Mr 

Konishi’s deposition would be appropriate.

The Mitsubishi proposal seems reasonable. During Mr Murata’s deposition in 

June 2015, the DPPs may examine him about Mitsubishi’s January 16 supplemental 

interrogatory response and any subsequent Mitsubishi responses, Mitsubishi’s sales data 

information and its search for and disposition of relevant documents. The Konishi deposition 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 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 ORDER RE DPPS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM MITSUBISHI PAGE 7 OF 8

will be postponed until after the Murata deposition and a hearing before the undersigned at a 

date to be determined.

 II. Mitsubishi’s Supplemental Response to DPPs’ Interrogatory No 12

With respect to Mitsubishi’s supplemental response to Interrogatory No 12, 

relating to Mitsubishi’s CRT and CRT Product sales, Mitsubishi asserts that it cannot produce 

information or documents it does not possess. Mitsubishi asserts that its third supplemental 

response served on May 26, 2015 clarifies “the specific sales data that it has produced” and 

confirms that “after completing its investigation, no other data exists.” 5/26/15 Fuentes Ltr at 

4. Mitsubishi also explains that the reason for the limited sales data in its possession is due to 

the following: (1) Mitsubishi was not a defendant in this MDL until August 2012 (Dkt 1325); 

(2) the DPPs did not sue Mitsubishi until very recently, May 5, 2014, seven years after the 

conspiracy was alleged to have ended; (3) Mitsubishi exited the CPT business in 1998, eight 

years before the end of the class period; and (4) Mitsubishi stopped manufacturing and selling 

CDTs in the 2004/2005 timeframe. 5/26/15 Fuentes Ltr at 5.

The DPPs assert that: (1) Mitsubishi’s third supplemental response to 

Interrogatory No 12 is still insufficient because a more informative response can be provided 

even with the existing documents and (2) Mitsubishi’s explanation for why it does not have any 

other sales data fails to provide any information about its search process or destruction or loss 

of information. 6/2/15 Saveri Ltr at 3-5.

The undersigned has reviewed Mitsubishi’s third supplemental response to the 

DPPs’ Interrogatory No 12 and finds it sparse. The parties’ submissions have raised issues 

regarding the adequacy of Mitsubishi’s document productions, the existence of responsive 

documents and what happened to responsive documents that no longer exist. Paragraph 3 of 

the May 26, 2015 Fuentes Declaration, based solely on information and belief, raises more 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3873 Filed 06/12/15 Page 8 of 8