Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827-159/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

This Order Relates to:

ALL CASES

 /

No. M 07-1827 SI

MDL. No. 1827

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DIRECT

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO

SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

TRANSLATIONS; ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 21, 2010, the Court heard argument on the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ objections to

the Special Master’s December 14, 2009 Report and Recommendation Re: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’

and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Translations. Pursuant to Pretrial

Order No. 4, the Court reviews the Special Master’s conclusions of law de novo and factual findings for

clear error. 

With regard to those translations that were prepared at the direction of counsel for Toshiba, LG,

Sharp, and Chi Mei, the Court agrees with the Special Master that those translations constitute opinion

work product. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 315-16 (3d Cir. 1985). For those translations that were

not sent to the Department of Justice, such as those prepared by the Toshiba entities, there has been no

waiver of the attorney work product protection. As to those translations that were provided to the

Department of Justice, even if there was a waiver, plaintiffs are nevertheless not entitled to those

translations because the May 27, 2008 Joint Recommendation and Order re Stay of Discovery prohibits

all discovery that “refer, reflect or relate to any party’s or witness’ communications with the United

States . . . .” Docket No. 631 ¶ 3. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the direct purchaser plaintiffs’

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1493 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

objections as to translations prepared at the direction of counsel for Toshiba, LG, Sharp, and Chi Mei

(Docket No. 1431) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 1420) insofar as it

relates to those translations.

With regard to translations, if any, that were prepared by Samsung, Hitachi, AU Optronics,

HannStar, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Epson, and Sanyo, there has been no showing that the translations

were prepared at the direction of counsel. To the extent that any of these defendants provided

translations to the Department of Justice, discovery of those translations would be barred by the May

27, 2008 order. However, if these defendants possess translations that were not provided to the

Department of Justice, such translations are discoverable absent a showing that they are protected as

attorney work product. Accordingly, as to each of the defendants Samsung, Hitachi, AU Optronics,

HannStar, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Epson, and Sanyo, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion and

orders that any such translations be produced, unless within 15 days of the filing date of this order, such

defendant files a declaration with this Court (1) stating a sufficient factual basis for any assertion of

attorney work product, and (2) showing good cause why the factual basis for an assertion of privilege

was not made before Judge Smith in the first instance or in opposing the direct purchaser plaintiffs’

motion in this Court. If any defendant files such a declaration, direct purchaser plaintiffs may file a

response within 5 days, and the Court will take the matter under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1493 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2