Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-355/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 TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 1 OF 19

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:

Best Buy v Toshiba 

 MDL No 1917

 

 Master Case No 3:07-cv-05944SC

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY RE BEST BUY’S 

COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE AND 

PRIVATE LABEL PROGRAMS

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 2 OF 19

The Toshiba defendants (“Toshiba”) have moved to compel Best Buy to 

respond further to discovery requests regarding Best Buy’s competitive intelligence and

private label programs, specifically seeking further responses to Toshiba’s Requests for 

Production of Documents Nos 1-4, 8-9, 13-14 and a further response to Interrogatory No 9.

I. Toshiba’s Competitive Intelligence Discovery Requests 

In light of the court’s prior decision,

1

the parties do not dispute the relevance 

of Best Buy’s competitive intelligence activities to issues of pass-through and antitrust injury 

and to rebut any argument that competitor communications and price monitoring are 

indicative of an improper conspiracy. Neither do the parties dispute that Best Buy has 

produced documents regarding its competitive intelligence activities during the relevant 

period. The present dispute centers on the quality and extent of Best Buy’s production of 

responsive documents and interrogatory responses.

With respect to Best Buy’s competitive intelligence program, Toshiba seeks 

further responses to its Document Requests Nos 1-4, 82 and 13-14.3 Toshiba’s Document 

Request Nos 2-4 and 13, provide in part as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No 2:

All Documents, including but not limited to reports, analyses, memoranda, and

communications relating to Your competitive intelligence activities. * * *

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No 3:

All Documents showing competitor intelligence activities engaged in by current 

or former Best Buy employees. * * *

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No 4:

 

1

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 301 FRD 449 (ND Cal 2014).

2 Toshiba’s Document Request No 8 is discussed separately below.

3

Since Document Requests Nos 1 and 14 are “catch-all” requests for all documents identified, 

considered or relied upon in preparing responses to Interrogatories, and all documents from custodial 

files of all persons identified in response to Interrogatories, respectively, this Order shall address them 

in connection with the other substantive discovery requests at issue here.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 3 OF 19

All Documents that contain the terms, phrases, notations, e-mail addresses, 

contact lists, or references of “Asia News Flash,” “ad reaction,” “Circuit City,” 

“Circuit,” “Competitive Edge,” “Competitive Edge Updates,” “Competitive 

Update,” “Competitive Flash,” “Competitive Specialist,” “Competitive 

Strategies,” “Competitive Strategies Group,” “Field Competitive Manager,” 

“Field Competitive Team,” “Mystery Shop,” “Pricing Supervisor,” “reaction 

plan,” or “shop reaction,” including but not limited to Documents sufficient to 

show all Persons that received Documents bearing these notations.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No 13:

All Documents relating to any modification, reduction, downsizing, 

reorganization, or termination of all departments or units that participated in 

Your competitive intelligence activities, including any change in employment 

status for any employees assigned to gather competitive intelligence on Your

behalf.

The undersigned has reviewed Toshiba’s Requests for Production Nos 2 -4 and 

13 and Best Buy’s Responses and Objections. The requests are unbounded in time and not 

limited to the subject matter in dispute – CRTs and CRT finished products. Hence, they are 

overbroad, unduly burdensome and properly objectionable. The requests define “competitive

intelligence activities” as including but not limited to “Your or any of Your executives, 

employees, or agents’ participation in any meetings with Your competitors” and thus cast a 

net far broader than necessary to obtain or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Request for Production No 4 follows up and requests all documents containing 

one of 17 terms, including “Circuit,” “Competitive Update,” “Competitive Specialist” and 

“Pricing Specialist,” which would appear to retrieve far more irrelevant documents, such as 

technical and human resources documents, than relevant documents.

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 4 OF 19

A. Summary of the Parties’ Arguments

Specifically, Toshiba requests: (1) a new search and production of “documents 

from the 14 competitive intelligence custodians identified by the Toshiba Defendants, using 

the same search terms Best Buy utilized when responding to Panasonic and LG’s discovery 

requests” (Document Request Nos 1-3, 13-14), (2) further searches using 17 specified search 

terms to produce documents relating to Best Buy’s competitive intelligence activities 

(Document Request No 4) and (3) further searches of and production of documents 

concerning CRTs or CRT Finished Products produced by Best Buy in the In re TFT-LCD (Flat 

Panel) Antitrust Litigation4(Document Request No 8). See 9/12/14 Toshiba’s Motion to 

Compel (“Toshiba’s Motion to Compel”) at 2, 10.

The reasons Toshiba provides for its assertion that “Best Buy has refused to 

make a reasonable production of its competitive intelligence documents” are numerous, 

including the following: (1) Best Buy made a “unilateral decision to produce purportedly 

representative samples of the types of competitor information it has,” refusing to produce 

documents regarding “how it gathers competitive intelligence,” (2) Best Buy “has not 

produced any documents from competitive intelligence custodians in this case,” producing 

only 263 documents from its former head of the competitive intelligence program, Philip 

Britton, all of which were identified by defendant Panasonic from Best Buy’s document 

production in the TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation and (3) “Best Buy’s agreement to permit 

Panasonic to review Best Buy’s LCD production for additional documents is inadequate.” 

Toshiba’s Motion to Compel at 3-4.

In opposition, Best Buy asserts that: (1) Toshiba’s motion and discovery 

requests violate the court’s discovery order requiring defendants to coordinate discovery in 

that Best Buy negotiated with defendant Panasonic on competitive intelligence document 

discovery long ago and based its searches and productions on the negotiated terms and 

 

4

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Case No 3:07-md-1827 SI (ND Cal) (“TFT-LCD 

Antitrust Litigation”). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 5 OF 19

procedures, (2) Toshiba’s discovery requests are burdensome and dilatory because they were 

filed August 1, 2014, the last day to serve discovery electronically, (3) Toshiba’s discovery 

requests are duplicative of requests the court previously found overly burdensome and 

sustained Best Buy’s objections and (4) Best Buy has already produced substantial discovery, 

far more than any other plaintiff, on competitive intelligence, having produced hundreds of 

documents and four witnesses on the topic, including the two key competitive intelligence 

leads, Philip Britton and Mike Ray, as well as Debbie Ayala and Best Buy’s Rule 30(b)(6) 

witness, Brian Stone. Philip Britton was deposed for seven hours on Best Buy’s competitive 

intelligence program. Mike Ray was deposed for “the better part of a day” on Best Buy’s 

competitive intelligence. Brian Stone was deposed for over 4 hours “solely on Best Buy’s 

competitive intelligence program.” 10/3/14 Best Buy’s Opposition (“Best Buy’s Opposition”) 

at 9.

B. Coordination of Discovery 

Best Buy contends that the motion should be denied in its entirety because 

Toshiba “deliberately ignored Judge Conti’s order requiring the parties to coordinate their 

discovery efforts so as to avoid repetitive and burdensome discovery” and Toshiba’s discovery 

“replicate[s] the extensive discovery already taken by defendants of Best Buy in this case.” 

Best Buy’s Opposition at 1. Best Buy asserts that on May 15, 2012, Defendants Panasonic 

Corporation and LG Electronics, Inc served document requests on Best Buy, including a broad 

document request encompassing all competitive intelligence discovery – seeking all 

documents referring to Best Buy’s “competitors and competition for the sale of CRT 

Products.” See Ex B to 10/3/14 Nelson Dec in support of Best Buy’s Opposition (“Nelson 

Dec”), 5/15/12 Panasonic and LG Electronics’ First Set of Requests for Production of 

Documents. Best Buy represents that it engaged in extensive negotiations on discovery 

search terms and a list of custodians “with counsel for Panasonic, acting on behalf of the 

defendants.” Best Buy’s Opposition at 5. Best Buy further contends that “Toshiba’s counsel 

chose not to participate in any of these discussions,” and after Best Buy engaged in “a massive 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 6 OF 19

document search entailing thousands of hours of review time” and production of “almost 

53,000 responsive documents comprising more than 124,000 pages” covering an 11-year 

period, Toshiba did not “contest the adequacy of the search, the propriety of the custodians 

selected for search, the sufficiency of the search results, or the scope of Best Buy’s 

production.” Best Buy’s Opposition at 5.

Upon reviewing the parties’ extensive submissions, it appears that the 

following facts are undisputed.

1. On April 3, 2012, Judge Conti issued a Discovery Protocol Order (ECF No 

1128) requiring the parties to coordinate their discovery and avoid 

duplicative discovery.

2. On May 15, 2012, the Panasonic and LG Electronics Defendants served their 

first set of document requests on Best Buy, seeking among other things,

competitive intelligence documents in Request No 14. See Ex B to Nelson 

Dec.

3. Defendants Panasonic and LG Electronics’ Request No 14 requests: “All 

reports, analyses, memoranda, Communications, and other discussions 

summarizing, describing, or referring to Your competitors and competition 

for the sale of CRT Products.” Ex B to Nelson Dec.

4. On August 17, 2012, Best Buy responded to Panasonic and LG Electronics’ 

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, considering all the 

requests to have been served on behalf of all defendants. See Ex C to

Nelson Dec, Best Buy Responses at 2 (“TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR 

COUNSEL OF RECORD” *** “1. Best Buy construes Defendants’ Requests as 

served on behalf of all defendants named in the Complaint (‘Defendants’) 

and responds and objects accordingly.”). The Certificate of Service reflects 

that Best Buy’s responses were served on parties of record, including the 

Toshiba Defendants. See Ex C to Nelson Dec, Certificate of Service at 7-8.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 6 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 7 OF 19

5. In October and November of 2012, Best Buy negotiated with Panasonic, on 

behalf of all defendants, regarding discovery on Best Buy’s competitive 

intelligence activities and agreeing both on custodians and search terms. 

See Ex H to 9/12/14 Lau Dec, 8/18/14 L Nelson Letter to M Hamburger.

6. On June 23, 2014, the undersigned conducted a telephone conference on

Best Buy‘s Motion for a Protective Order regarding Panasonic’s discovery of 

Best Buy’s competitive intelligence activities, for which counsel for 

Panasonic appeared on behalf of the other defendants in this litigation. 

6/23/14 Order re Best Buy’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No 2677-5, 

filed 7/7/14) at 2 (“counsel for Panasonic who was also speaking for the 

other defendants in the above litigation”).

7. On August 1, 2014, Panasonic and LG Electronics Defendants served their 

second set of document requests on Best Buy, requesting documents 

produced by Best Buy in the TFT- LCD Antitrust Litigation or related Actions. 

See Ex J to Nelson Dec.

8. On August 1, 2014, Toshiba served its First Set of Requests for Production 

of Documents and its First Set of Interrogatories on Best Buy, requesting 

competitive intelligence documents including documents produced by Best 

Buy in the TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation. Ex A and B to 9/12/14 Lau Dec.

9. On September 5, 2014, Toshiba joined in Panasonic and LG Electronics’

discovery requests to Best Buy. See Ex I to 9/12/14 Lau Dec, 9/5/14 M 

Hamburger letter to L Nelson at 1. September 5, 2014 was the last day of 

discovery in this matter.

Section XV of the court’s Order re Discovery and Case Management Protocol 

(“Discovery Protocol”) addresses “Coordination of Discovery and Individual Actions” and 

provides as follows:

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 7 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 8 OF 19

 “D. All CRT Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel shall engage 

in their best efforts to conduct discovery efficiently and without 

duplication.”

 “E. * * * Likewise, Defendants shall consult in good faith in an effort 

to propound joint written discovery requests, but to the extent 

separate written discovery is served, Defendants shall not duplicate 

interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for 

documents. Duplication is a proper objection to written discovery 

requests.”

 “H. Any discovery requests, including written discovery, deposition 

notices, or subpoenas served in this MDL proceeding, shall be 

served . . . on counsel for each defendant.”

Thus, the Toshiba defendants were required by the court’s Discovery Protocol 

to avoid duplicative discovery requests and to coordinate in good faith on discovery with 

other defendants.5 Having received Panasonic’s discovery requests much earlier in this 

litigation, Toshiba was required to coordinate with Panasonic, whose counsel was acting on 

behalf of all defendants in seeking discovery on Best Buy’s competitive intelligence activities. 

It appears to the undersigned that Toshiba’s Document Request Nos 2-4 and 

13, relating to Best Buy’s competitive intelligence activities and served on August 1, 2014, are 

duplicative of, and subsumed within the scope of, Panasonic and LG Electronics’ Document 

Request No 14 served on May 15, 2012: “All reports, analyses, memoranda, Communications, 

and other discussions summarizing, describing, or referring to Your competitors and 

 

5 The undersigned has received a 7/7/15 letter from counsel for Thomson SA and Thomson 

Consumer, Inc (“Thomson defendants”) asserting that parties should be allowed to continue discovery 

motions even after a moving party has settled with its adversary because parties have relied on the 

discovery of other parties pursuant to the prohibitions against duplicative discovery in the Discovery 

Protocol. This argument is compelling and an order on that issue will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, 

all defendants, including the Thomson defendants, obtained the benefit of Panasonic’s discovery 

efforts directed toward Best Buy and any complaints about those efforts now would be 

unpersuasive. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 8 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 9 OF 19

competition for the sale of CRT Products.” See Ex B to Nelson Dec, Panasonic and LG’s First 

Set of Requests for Production of Documents at 8. Best Buy’s objection on the ground of 

duplication appears to be proper.

In written discovery and in the Best Buy motion for a protective order, both 

Best Buy and other defendants treated counsel for Panasonic as acting on behalf of all 

defendants with respect to discovery from Best Buy. Counsel for all defendants received 

copies of Panasonic and LG Electronics’ written discovery served on Best Buy, Best Buy’s 

responses and objections and Best Buy’s motion for a protective order on competitive 

intelligence discovery. Having not coordinated its Best Buy competitive intelligence discovery 

with Panasonic and having served its first written discovery on Best Buy two months before 

the discovery cut-off, Toshiba’s complaints about the inadequacies of Best Buy’s document 

productions are not persuasive. Best Buy reasonably negotiated with counsel for Panasonic, 

believing that Panasonic’s counsel acted on behalf of all defendants. Due to the court’s 

Discovery Protocol requiring coordination, the written record indicating that counsel for 

Panasonic acted on behalf of all defendants with respect to discovery of Best Buy’s 

competitive intelligence activities, and the timing and duplicative nature of Toshiba’s written 

discovery at issue here, Toshiba’s contention that it should not be bound by Panasonic’s 

discovery agreements with Best Buy is also not persuasive.

C. Document Request No 8: Best Buy’s Production in the TFT-LCD 

Antitrust Litigation

Toshiba seeks further searches and production of documents responsive to its

Document Request No 8, which provides:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No 8:

All Documents relating to CRTs or CRT Finished Products that were produced by 

You in In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-md-1827-SI 

(N D Cal) or related actions.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 9 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 10 OF 19

Best Buy responded by objecting on relevance, duplicativeness and other 

grounds and referring “Toshiba to Best Buy’s Objections and Responses to Panasonic 

Corporation of North America’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and 

incorporates the same as if fully set forth herein.” See Ex C to Nelson Dec.

Toshiba asserts that Best Buy did not produce documents responsive to this 

request previously and that Best Buy should be required to “search its LCD production and 

produce any non-duplicative documents in this case that relate to CRTs or CRT Finished 

Products.” Toshiba’s Motion at 6. Toshiba contends that running a search and performing 

such a review “should be slight” and not “any serious burden” because it could be “performed 

by Best Buy’s document vendor.” Id.

Best Buy opposes, arguing that Toshiba deliberately failed to coordinate its 

discovery, Toshiba’s discovery requests are “belated,” “duplicative” and “cumulative” since 

“Best Buy’s CRT production includes many of the same competitive intelligence documents 

produced in the LCD litigation” and “Best Buy negotiated a process with defendants intended 

to identify selected LCD documents for potential use in this litigation as well.” Best Buy’s

Opposition at 1, 2, 11. Best Buy asserts that Toshiba’s Request No 8 is “entirely duplicative” 

of Panasonic’s second set of requests for production of documents (served 8/1/14), Request 

No 2: “All Documents produced by Best Buy in In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation or 

Related Actions that reference or relate to CRTs or CRT Finished Products.” See Ex J to Nelson 

Dec. Best Buy met and conferred with defendants regarding Panasonic’s request and 

negotiated a procedure that allowed defendants to review Best Buy’s production in the TFTLCD Antitrust Litigation to identify “additional competitive intelligence documents that are 

potentially relevant to this dispute.” Best Buy’s Opposition at 12. Best Buy contends that the 

burden of re-reviewing its TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation production, “which includes over 

26,000 documents,” would be significant and unwarranted. Id.

In reply, Toshiba contends that both its and Panasonic’s discovery requests 

were served on the same day and that Best Buy “unilaterally negotiate[d] with Panasonic” 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 10 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 11 OF 19

“while refusing to negotiate with the Toshiba Defendants about their Requests” and now 

seeks to bind Toshiba to an agreement negotiated without its consent. Toshiba’s Reply at 6.

As discussed above, the facts apparent from the record do not support 

Toshiba’s claims of prejudice. Panasonic is represented by able, experienced counsel, who 

acted on behalf of all defendants without any apparent objection. While it is true that 

Panasonic’s Second Requests for Production of Documents and Toshiba’s First Requests for 

Production of Documents were served on the same day, August 1, 2014, in light of Panasonic’s 

lead role on behalf of all defendants with respect to Best Buy’s competitive intelligence 

discovery, Toshiba should have coordinated with Panasonic to ensure that its discovery 

concerns were addressed.

D. Burden of Further Competitive Intelligence Discovery

In light of the extensive deposition testimony of four Best Buy witnesses on its 

competitive intelligence activities, the hundreds of competitive intelligence documents 

produced to date and the negotiated agreement with Panasonic on behalf of all defendants 

regarding review and production of competitive intelligence CRT documents from Best Buy’s 

TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation production, the undersigned concludes that sufficient discovery 

has been taken to afford Toshiba the opportunity to establish the nature and practices of Best 

Buy’s competitive intelligence programs that may be used to demonstrate that competitive 

intelligence activities alone are not indicative of anticompetitive activity.

A search of 14 additional custodial files, new searches using 17 broad terms, 

new searches of Best Buy’s TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation production and reviewing and 

producing additional documents in response to these overbroad and duplicative document 

requests would appear to be unduly burdensome in light of the extensive discovery 

conducted and produced to date. Having reasonably negotiated with counsel for Panasonic, 

who acted on behalf of all defendants in seeking discovery of Best Buy’s competitive 

intelligence activities, Best Buy should not be required to conduct duplicative and 

burdensome discovery on the very same issues raised by Toshiba.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 11 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 12 OF 19

II. Best Buy’s Private Label CRT Products: Interrogatory No 9, Document Request No 9

With respect to Best Buy’s private label program, Toshiba requests further 

responses to Interrogatory No 9 and further production of documents in response to 

Document Requests 1, 9 and 14. Toshiba’s Motion to Compel at 1, 7.

Toshiba’s Interrogatory No 9 seeks a description of Best Buy’s “Policies, 

practices and procedures regarding [its] purchase and sale of CRTs or CRT Finished Products 

during the Relevant Period as part of a private-label program, including but not limited to (a) 

the brand name(s) and application(s) of all CRT Finished Products [it] purchased or sold as part 

of a private label program, and (b) the Identity of the five (5) Persons who had the most 

responsibility for conducting, implementing or directing [its] private-label program.”

Toshiba also seeks production of documents responsive to its Document 

Request No 9 which calls for a search for private-label documents using 17 terms:

All documents related to [Best Buy’s] purchase or sales of CRTs or CRT Finished 

Products as part of a private-label program, including but not limited to all 

Documents that contain the terms, phrases, notations, or references of “Asia 

Office,” “BBY China,” “Best Buy China,” “Dynex,” “Funai,” “Haier,” “Insignia,” 

“Konka,” “Orion,” “private label,” “Private Label Solutions,” “Proview,” 

“Rowell,” “Sourcing Group,” “VPR,” “VPR Matrix,” or “Xoceco.” For purposes of 

this request, “private-label program” is defined as those CRTs or CRT Finished 

Products that You purchased, ordered, directed to be purchased or ordered, 

considered purchasing or ordering, or arranged for delivery for the purpose of 

manufacturing, producing, assembling, purchasing, or selling CRT Finished 

Products under Your brand or under an exclusive brand not sold by Your 

competition or competitors.

Toshiba specifically requests: 

(1) a substantive response to Interrogatory No 9 “identifying the five persons 

most responsible for implementing Best Buy’s private label program for CRT 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 12 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 13 OF 19

Finished Products, as well as the brand names and types of private label 

CRT Finished Products sold at Best Buy during the relevant time period;” 

(2) production of documents for the five identified private label persons using 

“all previously agreed upon search terms;” and

(3) production of “all other private label documents regarding CRTs or CRT 

Finished Products from the files of these persons and all other custodians 

that contain any of the 17 terms listed in Document Request No. 9.” 

Toshiba’s Motion to Compel at 10.

 

For the reasons that follow, the undersigned finds Request No 9 unreasonably 

overbroad. The search terms are very broad and encompass far more than the information 

purportedly sought, requiring substantial document searches and review time. Best Buy’s 

awareness of CRT component costs in their private label CRT Finished Products, the

substitutability and competition between Best Buy’s private label CRT finished products and 

branded products and pass-on of any unlawful overcharge are only some of the topics that 

would appear to be embraced by Request No 9. The undersigned also finds that Document 

Request Nos 1 and 14, as applied to Interrogatory 9 or Request No 9 would be similarly 

overbroad and unduly burdensome in light of the marginal relevance of Best Buy’s privatelabel program, the extensive private-label discovery already produced, and the substantial

new searches and reviews that would be required.

Courts must weigh the burden of the discovery sought against its likely 

benefits. FRCP 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Factors courts consider are: “the needs of the case, the 

amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, and the importance of discovery in resolving those issues.” Id. Two general 

considerations capture these factors: relevance and burden.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 13 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 14 OF 19

A. Relevance of Best Buy’s Private Label CRT Finished Products

Toshiba contends that Best Buy’s private label program is relevant to “costs of 

components in those products, including the costs of the CRTs and CRT sub-components such 

as glass” and that “Best Buy’s awareness of these component costs” is relevant and 

undisputed.6 Best Buy counters that its private label program is not relevant because: (1) it 

did not bring any claims related to its private label products; (2) Best Buy bought fully finished 

products merely containing CRTs as a component, labeled these finished products with Best 

Buy’s house brands and “did not source any of the components for its private-label products”

7

so its private-label program is not relevant to component costs; and (3) how Best Buy’s 

private-label products competed in the market on cost and price is well known to Toshiba 

which has had Best Buy’s transactional data since early 2013.

8

Both parties cite Special Master Martin Quinn’s May 29, 2013 order regarding 

Toshiba’s discovery on private label programs in the TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation.

9

 There, 

Special Master Quinn concluded that Toshiba’s argument on the relevance of Best Buy’s 

private-label program was “elusive,” “difficult to understand,” and “not on strong grounds,” 

but nevertheless granted Toshiba’s motion in part, allowing “very limited discovery.”10

The essence of Toshiba’s argument for relevance appears to be that “unless 

Best Buy never discussed costs when negotiating purchases from its private label 

manufacturers, a significant number of documents concerning Best Buy’s purchases of CRT 

finished products from those manufacturers will likely relate to the cost of components in 

those products, including the costs of the CRTs and CRT sub-components such as glass.”11 

Special Master Quinn’s assessment in the TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation that “Toshiba’s 

 

6 Toshiba’s Reply at 7. 

7 Best Buy’s Opposition at 13. 

8

Id.

9 Special Master Quinn’s Order, In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-md-01827-SI, ECF No 

8025 (ND Cal May 29, 2013) (“Special Master Quinn’s Order”). 

10 Nelson Dec, Ex A at 3-6. 

11 Toshiba’s Reply at 7. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 14 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 15 OF 19

argument for the significance of this [private label] discovery is elusive” applies to Toshiba’s 

request here. It is the elusiveness, in Special Master Quinn’s apt characterization, of the 

relevance of this discovery that warrants denying or limiting it.

Furthermore, Best Buy’s private label program in the TFT-LCD Antitrust 

Litigation appears to have greater relevance than in this case. Special Master Quinn observed 

that “since Best Buy was making monitors, notebooks and TVs, it would obviously have had 

communications with panel suppliers and had knowledge of, and an interest in, the cost and 

supply of LCD panels.”12

With respect to CRTs, Best Buy is an indirect purchaser, buying only CRT 

Finished Products. Its injury, if any, depends on proof that the anti-competitive overcharge 

resulting from the conspiracy alleged here was passed on to Best Buy in the form of a higher 

finished product price than would have prevailed in the absence of a conspiracy. The

apparent negative that Toshiba seeks to prove through this discovery is the absence of Best 

Buy’s injury. Although Toshiba does not quite put it this way, Toshiba’s discovery, if it would 

prove anything, would show either that Best Buy passed on to consumers any overcharge 

from price-fixed CRT components, a price-fix that Toshiba denies, of course, or alternatively 

that the assemblers of televisions and computers that Best Buy sold suffered the effect of any 

price-fixing and did not pass this overcharge on to Best Buy. To be sure, Toshiba takes a 

different position in litigation with respect to direct purchasers of CRT products and indirect 

purchasers who bought finished products from Best Buy. While taking factually inconsistent 

positions is entirely within Toshiba’s right, it is proving the absence of injury that Toshiba 

seeks to demonstrate that makes this discovery “elusive.” Negative propositions can 

sometimes be proved, but doing so requires ruling out the possibilities. In the absence of a 

clearly stated theory of one or more of the possibilities, and Toshiba has not provided one, 

discovery directed to a negative proposition does indeed become elusive. (One advantage of 

a joint trial of both the direct purchaser and indirect purchaser consumer claims is that it 

 

12 Special Master Quinn’s Order at 5.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 15 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 16 OF 19

would force the parties to take a position on where the effect of any overcharge, if proved, 

came to rest.)

Special Master Quinn concluded that, “Toshiba is not on strong grounds as to 

the relevance and significance of its requested discovery, its delay in asking for it, or as to the 

prejudice to Best Buy of requiring it.”13 The undersigned agrees with this assessment, indeed, 

the grounds of relevance in this litigation are even shakier.

B. Burden of Private Label Discovery 

Notwithstanding Special Master Quinn’s characterization, he ordered limited

discovery somewhat along the lines Toshiba seeks here. Toshiba asks that Best Buy be 

ordered to identify the five persons with the “most responsibility” for conducting, 

implementing or directing Best Buy’s private label program, produce documents from 

custodial files of those persons using the search terms previously adopted to respond to 

Defendant’s discovery requests and limit the documents to those “regarding CRTs or CRT 

Finished Products that contain any of the 17 terms listed in Document Request No. 9.”14 

Toshiba contends that Best Buy would not be burdened or prejudiced by identifying the brand 

names and applications because Best Buy only had a limited number of private-label or houselabeled CRT Finished Products and that Toshiba moved to compel six months before trial here 

rather than two months before trial as in the TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation.

Best Buy counters that it already produced “over 3,600 documents in this 

matter that relate to VPR Matrix, Insignia, or Dynex, its three main private-label brands,” 

which are more than sufficient to show “how Best Buy merchants assorted and priced its 

private-label products” and with which branded products they competed.15 On balance, it 

appears that many of the seventeen terms in Request No 9 are extremely broad, such as “Asia 

 

13 Special Master Quinn’s Order at 5. 

14 Toshiba’s Motion to Compel at 7-8. 

15 Best Buy’s Opposition at 13. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 16 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 17 OF 19

Office,” “BBY China,” “Best Buy China,” “private label,” and “Sourcing Group,” and would 

retrieve a huge number of documents requiring substantial review and culling.

Again, the burden of the discovery sought is weighed against its likely 

benefits. FRCP 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Here, the burden of the discovery sought would be substantial, 

requiring interviews of 5 new witnesses, document collections and reviews and searches of all 

documents for each of the 17 broad search terms in Document Request No 9 regarding 

private-label programs. Such discovery would require substantial time, effort and cost. The 

case is at an advanced stage, soon ready for trial and Best Buy has produced a significant 

amount of discovery already with respect to its private label products. The further discovery 

sought regarding Best Buy’s private label program would likely be of minimal significance and 

relevance in resolving the issues in this case, in particular damages, which are generally 

addressed by experts using transactional and sales data. In weighing the burden of the 

discovery sought against its likely benefits, the undersigned concludes that the marginal 

relevance and limited potential benefit of the further discovery sought on private label 

programs is outweighed by the significant burden it would impose at a late stage in this case 

and after Best Buy has already produced substantial discovery. See e g, Meijer, Inc v Abbott 

Labs, 251 FRD 431, 434 (ND Cal 2008) (burden of discovery far outweighs limited potential of 

sales data to provide relevant insight); see also In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust

Litig, 226 FRD 492, 498 (MD Pa 2005) (“marginal relevance of the information sought is clearly 

outweighed by the burden and expense that the proposed discovery would impose.”).

In light of the elusive relevance and significance of the private label documents 

sought, the burden of the discovery sought and the fact that Best Buy has already produced 

over 3,600 documents relating to its top three private-label brands, the undersigned 

concludes that Toshiba’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No 9 should be 

granted only with respect to the brand names and applications of Best Buy’s three main 

private-label brands. Toshiba’s request for the names of “the five persons most responsible 

for implementing Best Buy’s private label program for CRT Finished Products” is obviously 

vague as personnel undoubtedly changed over the class period. It should be sufficient for 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 17 of 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

ORDER RE TOSHIBA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PAGE 18 OF 19

Best Buy to satisfy this inquiry by identifying the name or names of the person or persons 

principally responsible for Best Buy’s private-label program as it involved CRT Finished 

Products during the class period. While of dubious potential to lead to or produce admissible 

evidence, such a response to Interrogatory No 9 should not be unduly burdensome. But 

Toshiba’s motion to compel production of documents responsive to Document Request Nos 1,

9 and 14 would be significantly burdensome, requiring new custodial searches, new document 

searches using broad search terms and substantial document review. In light of the 

questionable relevance of Best Buy’s limited private-label program, Best Buy’s already 

substantial document production relating to its three top private-label brands and the 

substantial burden of what Toshiba requests, Toshiba’s motion with respect to Document 

Request Nos 1, 9 and 14 should be denied.

Accordingly, the undersigned ORDERS as follows:

Toshiba’s motion to compel is GRANTED in part with respect to Interrogatory 

No 9. Best Buy is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No 9 by specifying the brand names and 

applications of its three main private-label brands and the names of the five senior or highestranking persons with responsibility for conducting, implementing or directing those privatelabel programs during the relevant period. Toshiba’s motion to compel is DENIED in all other 

respects.

Signatures on next page

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 18 of 19
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3908 Filed 07/09/15 Page 19 of 19