Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827-1071/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: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 07-md-01827-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

INTERVENE

Re: Dkt. No. 9547

On January 6, 2017, the Court held a hearing on movant Fanshawe College of Applied 

Arts and Technology’s motion to intervene for the purpose of seeking modification of the

protective order in this action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion. 

DISCUSSION

Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology (“Fanshawe”) is the named plaintiff in 

two class actions pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada: Fanshawe College 

of Applied Arts and Technology v. LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd., et. al, Court File No. 54054 CP 

(“LG Canadian Action”), and Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v. AU Optronics 

Corporation., et al, Court File No. 62858 CP (“AUO Canadian Action”) (collectively the 

“Canadian Actions”). In the Canadian Actions, Fanshawe alleges that manufacturers of liquid 

crystal display (“LCD”) panels engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy that harmed Canadian 

consumers of LCD panels and products containing LCD panels. The first Canadian lawsuit was 

filed in May 2007, and the second was filed in July 2009. The Canadian plaintiffs assert the same 

anti-competitive conspiracy alleged in the MDL before this Court, except that the Canadian 

plaintiffs allege economic harm resulting from purchases of price-fixed LCD panels and products 

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 9567 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 5
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

in Canada, while this MDL involved the United States market.

Fanshawe seeks to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of seeking modification of 

the protective order1in this case to permit Fanshawe access to the data and expert reports of Dr. 

Janet Netz. Dr. Netz was an expert retained by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs (“IPPs”) in this 

MDL, and the IPPs filed reports by Dr. Netz addressing the impact of the alleged conspiracy on 

consumers in the United States. Dr. Netz’s expert reports and underlying data were designated as 

Highly Confidential, and portions of her reports were filed under seal. The underlying data used 

by Dr. Netz was not filed in the docket, and that data was provided both by the defendants in this 

case as well as third parties. Fanshawe has also hired Dr. Netz as an expert in the Canadian 

Actions. 

Fanshawe states that it does not seek to participate actively as a litigant on the merits in 

this litigation, or to conduct its own discovery here. Fanshawe also does not challenge the 

protective order itself or the sealing orders entered by this Court. Rather, Fanshawe seeks to 

intervene to obtain access to materials subject to the terms of the governing protective order, as 

modified to permit it to use the materials in its actions in Canada. Fanshawe states that it seeks to 

use Dr. Netz’s reports and data in its litigation in Canada, thus saving Fanshawe the burden and 

expense of duplicating the same discovery in the Canadian Actions. 

Defendant Sharp Corporation opposes the motion on several grounds. First, Sharp 

contends that Fanshawe’s motion is untimely because Fanshawe seeks intervention “at the latest 

possible stage of these proceedings: long after they have been resolved and fully five and one-half 

years after disclosure of the relevant opening expert report.” Dkt. No. 9561 at 5:1-4.2 Defendant 

notes that settlement of the IPP action was granted final approval in 2012, and this MDL was 

finally closed in May 2016. Defendant argues, and Fanshawe does not dispute, that Fanshawe has 

 

1

 In December 2007, this Court signed a Stipulated Protective Order governing the 

designation and sharing of confidential and highly confidential information. MDL Dkt. No. 421. 

That order states that the “confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect 

until the Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or this Court orders otherwise.” Id. at § 4.

2

 From the parties’ papers, it appears that Fanshawe seeks reports that Dr. Netz filed in 

2011. Dr. Netz also filed reports in this MDL in 2009.

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 9567 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 5
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

known about this MDL litigation since at least 2009, and nothing prevented Fanshawe from

moving to intervene in this action earlier. Defendant states that the cases cited by Fanshawe 

demonstrate that even if discovery is not permitted in Canada prior to class certification, there is 

no bar on Canadian plaintiffs from seeking pre-certification intervention in United States cases to 

obtain discovery. See In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prod. Liab. Litig., 1:04-cv10981-PBS, slip op. (D. Mass. Oct. 13, 2006) (granting motion to intervene in MDL where 

discovery was ongoing, and noting that Canadian court in parallel litigation had “not yet ruled on 

class certification” and therefore the movants were “barred from seeking discovery from 

defendants in Canada”). Fanshawe’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 2 (Dkt. No. 9458-1).

Second, defendant argues that even if Fanshawe could demonstrate the threshold 

requirements for permissive intervention, the Court should exercise its discretion to deny the 

motion because Fanshawe has not shown why this Court should reopen a closed case to permit 

access to discovery when Fanshawe can seek the discovery it needs in Canada. Defendant also 

argues that Fanshawe has not shown how the discovery it seeks is relevant to the Canadian action

since Dr. Netz’s reports focused on the extent to which alleged overcharges on LCD panels were 

“passed through” to consumers of finished products in the United States, not Canada.

Permissive intervention is appropriate when an applicant has shown that (1) there are 

independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) its claim or defense, and the 

main action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common. Northwest Forest Res.

Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). Permissive 

intervention “is committed to the broad discretion of the district court.” Orange County v. Air 

Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 1986).

The Court concludes that Fanshawe has not demonstrated that its motion for intervention is 

timely, or that the Court should exercise its discretion to grant the relief that it seeks. At the 

hearing on this matter, counsel appearing for Fanshawe asserted that the motion was timely 

because this MDL is still ongoing due to an appeal before the Ninth Circuit3and because there are 

 

3

 Counsel stated he thought that there was an appeal pending in the Costco v. AUO 

Optronics et al. case. After the conclusion of pretrial matters in this Court, the Costco case was 

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 9567 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 5
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

residual funds in the IPP settlement that remain to be distributed. However, there is no question 

that this MDL is closed and that there is no active litigation in this Court. The record before the 

Court shows that Fanshawe has been aware of this litigation since at least 2009, and the Court 

finds that Fanshawe could have sought to intervene for the purpose of modifying the protective 

order years ago. Permitting intervention at this late date “would burden the parties and non-parties 

in this action by requiring them to continue policing access to confidential information disclosed 

in the present case. Such a continuing obligation is contrary to the expectation of parties that have 

sought an end to litigation by settling the claims.” In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) 

Litig., No. 07-md-01819 CW, 2011 WL 5193479, at *3 (Nov. 1, 2011) (internal citation omitted) 

(denying Canadian plaintiff’s motion for intervention for the purpose of obtaining expert reports 

as untimely where both the Canadian and SRAM cases were filed in 2007, the expert reports were 

filed in 2008-2009, and the Canadian plaintiff moved to intervene in March 2011 after the SRAM

case had settled).

The Court further finds that Fanshawe has not demonstrated that it is appropriate to modify 

the protective order to permit access to Dr. Netz’s reports and data. Fanshawe states that it seeks 

to use those materials in its litigation in Canada, and that if it is permitted to obtain those materials 

through this court it will save Fanshawe the burden and expense of duplicating the same discovery 

in the Canadian cases. However, Dr. Netz’s reports examined the impact of the alleged conspiracy 

in the United States, and her reports explicitly excluded LCD panels sold in Canada. The Court 

agrees with Judge Wilken’s analysis in denying a similar request in SRAM:

Although the Canadian plaintiffs satisfy the low threshold for demonstrating that 

they seek relevant information, and their motion does not attempt to circumvent 

Canadian procedures and discovery limitations, the avoidance of duplicative 

discovery does not outweigh the reliance interests of the parties opposing 

modification of the protective order. The amount of duplicative discovery avoided 

 

remanded to the transferor court, the Western District of Washington, on July 8, 2013. Dkt. No. 

338 in C 11-0058 SI. That case then proceeded to trial in that District, AUO took an appeal, and 

on December 14, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss that appeal. 

See Dkt. Nos. 708, 709 in Case No. 2:13-cv-01207-RAJ (W.D. Wash.); Ninth Circuit Case No. 

16-35170.

This Court is aware of only one other pending appeal in this MDL, the Sony Elec. Inc. v. 

Hannstar Corp. case. (C 12-2214 SI, Ninth Circuit Case No. 14-15916). Earlier this year, a 

divided panel ruled in Sony’s favor, and Hannstar is currently seeking rehearing en banc. 

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 9567 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 5
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

will not be substantial because the sought-after unredacted expert reports focus 

upon and limit analysis to the United States market for SRAM and the impact of 

the alleged conspiracy on American businesses and consumers.

Id. at *6 (internal citations omitted).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking 

modification of protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 9567 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 5