Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-326/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

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:

DAPs v Thomson 

 MDL No 1917

 

 Master Case No 3:07-cv-05944SC

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPs

 

This order addresses two motions to compel filed by Thomson SA and Thomson 

Consumer Electronics, Inc (“Thomson”) on September 12 and 19, 2014, seeking to compel the

Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs”) to provide further responses to certain interrogatories and 

requests for production, set forth below. 

Thomson seeks additional responses regarding (1) the nature and timing of the DAPs’ 

investigations into their potential claims against Thomson, arguing that such information may 

lead to information relevant to Thomson’s laches and statute of limitations defenses, (2) the 

DAPs’ intent to opt-out of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff (“DPP”) class and (3) the alleged 

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 1 OF 12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 13
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

conspiracy regarding CDTs.

1 Thomson contends that the timing and nature of investigations 

that led the DAPs to sue Thomson would be vital to prove its laches and statute of limitations 

defenses and cannot be obtained through any other means. Thomson cites to the March 13, 

2014 Order on its motion to dismiss,

2 in which the court stated:

In examining Sharp’s FAC [first amended complaint], it is difficult not to find 

some delay, but the Court cannot find that Sharp’s delay was unreasonable 

based only on the FAC’s allegations. As noted above, some of Sharp’s claims are 

time-barred, but some are tolled, and there is a ‘strong presumption’ that laches 

is inapplicable to claims brought within a statutory period. See Jarrow, 304 F.3d 

at 835-36. Thomson SA is, of course, not barred from raising laches on a more 

developed record.” 3/13/14 Order at 30. 

Thomson asserts that the DAPs have waived any attorney client or work product privilege by 

contesting Thomson’s statute of limitations defense, citing the Hearn test for implied waiver 

and Rambus Inc v Samsung Elec Co, Ltd, 2007 WL 3444376 (ND Cal Nov 13, 2007).

Finally, Thomson asserts that the DAPs refused to provide basic information on their 

allegations that Thomson participated in a conspiracy concerning both color display tubes 

(CDTs) and color picture tubes (CPTs). Because it never manufactured or sold CDTs during the 

relevant period, Thomson contends it is entitled to know the basis for the DAPs’ allegation that 

Thomson participated in a conspiracy to fix prices of CDTs (Interrogatories 13 and 14). 

1 Thomson’s first (9/12/14) motion to compel seeks further responses to Interrogatories 10-12, 

15-16 and RFPs 3-4 of its first Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (substantively, DAPs’ 

investigation into claims against Thomson and scope of conspiracy). Thomson’s second (9/19/14)

motion, addresses Interrogatory 1 and RFP 2 of its Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of 

Requests for Production (substantively, the DAPs’ intentions to opt-out of the DPP class). 2 In re CRT Antitrust Litigation, No 3:07-cv-05944SC, Dkt 2440, Order (ND Cal Mar 13, 

2014)(“3/13/14 Order”).

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 2 OF 12

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 13
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

In response, the DAPs contend that (1) the discovery sought is not relevant to any 

Thomson defense; (2) certain DAPs have provided adequate responses; (3) the documents and 

information sought are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine; 

(4) there is no implied waiver of privilege; and (5) Thomson misinterprets the scope of the CRT 

conspiracy. 

I. The DAPs’ Investigation of Claims against Thomson

Thomson contends that its discovery related to the timing and nature of the DAPs’ 

investigation into the claims against Thomson is vital to its statute of limitations and laches 

defenses and is uniquely discoverable from the DAPs. The specific discovery requests are set 

forth below.3

Interrogatory No 10: IDENTIFY each PERSON employed or controlled by YOU 

who participated in YOUR investigation into whether the Thomson Defendants 

participated in the conspiracy that is the subject of YOUR COMPLAINT. 

Interrogatory No 11: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS each PERSON IDENTIFIED in 

Response to Interrogatory No. 10 reviewed during YOUR investigation into whether the 

Thomson Defendants participated in the conspiracy that is the subject of YOUR 

COMPLAINT.

Interrogatory No 12: IDENTIFY when YOU first learned of the existence of the 

conspiracy that is the subject of YOUR COMPLAINT.

3

 Thomson’s Interrogatories 10-12, 15-16 and RFPs 3-4 are from its first Sets of Interrogatories 

and Requests for Production.

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 3 OF 12

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 13
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

Interrogatory No. 15: IDENTIFY the EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTS YOU discovered 

and the date YOU discovered the EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTS that caused YOU to file 

YOUR COMPLAINT against the Thomson Defendants. 

Interrogatory No 16: Explain why YOU did not name Thomson Consumer as a 

defendant in your original complaint [name of complaint and case number] filed by YOU 

on or about [date complaint filed] in the [name of court in which complaint was 

originally filed].

Request for Production No. 3: All DOCUMENTS related to when YOU 

investigated, or attempted to investigate, the existence of the alleged antitrust 

conspiracy that is the subject of YOUR COMPLAINT.

Request for Production No. 4: All DOCUMENTS related to when YOU learned of 

the existence of the alleged antitrust conspiracy that is the subject of YOUR COMPLAINT.

With the exception of Interrogatories 12 and 15, these requests appear to encompass 

attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. In balancing the 

interests of protecting privileged communications, potential relevance and burden, the 

undersigned recommends granting the motion with respect to Interrogatories 12 and 15 and 

denying the motion without prejudice as to Interrogatories 10-11, 16 and Requests for 

Production 3 and 4. 

Accordingly, any DAP that has failed to provide substantive responses to Thomson’s 

Interrogatories 12 and 15 should provide updated discovery responses. The date of first 

learning of the existence of the conspiracy and evidence causing the filing of the complaint 

should not be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. If these 

responses do implicate confidential and privileged attorney client communications and 

attorney work product, any DAP claiming such a privilege should comply with FRCP 26(b)(5)(A). 

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 4 OF 12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 4 of 13
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

If the DAPs’ responses to Interrogatories 12 and 15 create a sufficient basis, then Thomson may 

file a renewed motion on Interrogatories 10-11, 16 and Requests for Production 3 - 4. 

A. Thomson’s Statute of Limitations Defense

The DAPs assert that the discovery sought is not relevant because it cannot support a 

valid statute of limitations defense and laches is not an available defense. Both parties rely on 

the court’s 3/13/14 Order, which addresses in detail these two Thomson defenses and makes 

relevant determinations that the undersigned must consider, including the following: 

1. “the Court has held that parties to this case knew or should have known of the 

possibility of bringing suit by November 2007, when various governments issued 

press releases concerning the CRT price-fixing conspiracy and lawsuits were filed 

around the world.”4

2. “the Court finds that Sharp’s claims are tolled under the doctrine of fraudulent 

concealment until November 14, 2007, the latest date on which the Court has found 

such tolling appropriate given worldwide press releases and lawsuits concerning this 

alleged conspiracy;”5 

3. “American Pipe tolls Sharp’s federal claims against Thomson SA between January 28, 

2008, and March 16, 2009;”6

4. “[t]he Court holds that [15 USC] §16(i) tolls Sharp’s federal claims from February 10, 

2009, when the first indictment issued, until today. The same reasoning applies to 

Plaintiffs’ claims under the Donnelly Act, which the parties do not fully address in 

4 3/13/14 Order at 18. 5 3/13/14 Order at 22. 

6 3/13/14 Order at 24.

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 5 OF 12

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 5 of 13
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

their briefing. Since the Donnelly Act’s tolling provision maps to the federal law, 

Sharp’s Donnelly Act claim is tolled for the pendency of the federal criminal 

proceedings.”7

5. “[A]ll of the DAPs’ state law claims against the Thomson Defendants are DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE as untimely, except any Donnelly Act claims, which are tolled by 

governmental action. The federal claims are also tolled by governmental action.” 

Thus, the DAPs’ federal and Donnelly Act claims survived the Thomson motion to 

dismiss but the state law claims were time-barred. According to the court, the federal and 

Donnelly Act claims were not barred by the four-year statute of limitations because the 

fraudulent concealment doctrine tolled the claims until November 14, 2007, class action tolling 

applied from 1/28/08 to 3/16/09, and governmental action tolling applied from 2/10/09 to the 

present. See Attachment A, Tolling Timeline. There is only about a two-month period after the 

end of fraudulent concealment tolling to the start of class action tolling which extends into the 

government action tolling period. As a result, it appears that the only evidence relevant to 

Thomson’s statute of limitations defense would be any DAP investigations that push the 

fraudulent concealment tolling back to around January 2004, which may establish that the 

DAPs’ actions were not timely. 

The Federal Rules allow discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense.” FRCP 26(b). Thomson’s Interrogatories 12 and 15 are directed 

to the timing of the DAPs’ first awareness of claims against Thomson and may lead to relevant 

information if any of the DAPs answer Interrogatory No 12 with a date sufficiently before 

November 14, 2007 to invoke the four-year statute of limitations. 

7 3/13/14 Order at 29. 

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 6 OF 12

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 6 of 13
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

To the extent any DAP responds to Interrogatories 12 and 15 by stating that its earliest 

knowledge of the existence of a claim against Thomson was on or after a date within the fouryear statute of limitations period, there would be no need for or relevance of any further 

discovery into the timing and nature of the DAPs’ investigation into claims against Thomson. 

Given the court’s determinations on the class action and governmental action tolling periods, it 

appears that discovery into the nature of the DAPs’ investigation of claims against Thomson

after November 2007 and within the statute of limitations period would not be relevant to a 

statute of limitations defense. Arguably, only evidence of investigation predating the four-year 

statute of limitations would be relevant and warrant further discovery.

B. Thomson’s Laches Defense

Thomson next contends that the requested discovery is vital to its laches defense. 

As the court noted, there is a ‘strong presumption’ that laches is inapplicable to claims 

brought within the statutory period. 3/13/14 Order at 30 (citing Jarrow, 304 F.3d at 835-36). In 

light of the court’s determination that the DAPs’ federal and Donnelly Act claims were filed 

within the relevant statute of limitations, the discovery sought would not establish an 

unreasonable delay in bringing suit, as required for proving laches. 

The DAPs also rely on the Supreme Court decision, Petrella v Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc, 

132 S Ct 1962, 1974 (2014), for the proposition that “in face of a statute of limitations enacted 

by Congress, laches cannot be invoked to bar legal relief.” Petrella held that the equitable 

defense of laches “cannot be invoked to preclude adjudication of a claim for damages brought 

within the three-year window [of the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations, 17 USC 

507(b)].” 132 S Ct at 1967. The majority noted that the dissent did not cite a single case in 

which this Court has approved the application of laches to bar a claim for damages brought

within the time allowed by a federal statute of limitations. 132 S Ct at 1974. 

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 7 OF 12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 7 of 13
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

Thomson distinguishes Petrella because it involved the unique rules of the Copyright Act, 

whereas the Clayton Act, so Thomson contends, lacks analogous provisions. But the Clayton 

Act, like the Copyright Act, provides a clear statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp v 

Malley-Duff & Assoc, 483 US 143, 156 (1987) (applying four-year statute of limitations of the 

Clayton Act, 15 USC §15b: “Any action to enforce any cause of action under section 15, 15a, or 

15c of this title shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of 

action accrued”). The language of the Clayton Act statute of limitations is very similar to that of 

the Copyright Act: “[n]o civil action shall be maintained under the [Act] unless it is commenced 

within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

In light of existing Ninth Circuit case law and the Supreme Court’s Petrella decision, it 

appears highly unlikely that laches would be a viable defense if the claims were filed within the 

applicable statute of limitations. Thus the discovery Thomson seeks would not lead to evidence 

relevant to a laches defense. 

 

II. The DAPs’ Intention to Opt Out of the DPP Class

Thomson’s second motion seeks further responses to the following discovery from 

Thomson’s second set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents: 

Interrogatory No 1: If You contend that the statute of limitations on the claims 

in Your Complaint were tolled under any tolling agreement between Thomson SA, 

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc.) (“Thomson 

Consumer”), and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in Case No. 3:07-cv-5944, MDL No. 1917, 

describe in detail and in narrative form (including by Identifying each Document, Person, 

or other evidentiary source that You rely upon) the factual basis for your contention, 

including:

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 8 OF 12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 8 of 13
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

a) The dates on which You contend tolling began and ended;

b) Any period during which You contend You were a member of the putative Direct 

Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the “Class”); and

c) Any communications with counsel for the Class, Defendants, or alleged Conspirators 

regarding your intention to opt out of the Class with regard to any settlement or 

litigation Class involving any Defendant or alleged Conspirator.

Request For Production No. 2: All Documents which reflect communications 

between You and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, any class action administrator, any 

Defendant or Conspirator in this litigation, or any other Person regarding your intention 

to exclude Yourself from any putative or certified Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, 

including copies of any opt-out or exclusion notices sent by You in this litigation. 

Thomson claims that the DAPs have stated that they are entitled to rely on a November 

2011 tolling agreement between Thomson and the DPPs because at the time, the DAPs were 

members of the DPP class, had not yet opted out and were entitled to rely on the benefit of the 

Thomson/DPP tolling agreement. Thomson asserts that because the DAPs have put this into 

issue, it is entitled to discovery on the DAPs’ intention to opt-out of the DPP class. Thomson 

states that “[i]f a particular DAP communicated to counsel for the DPP class that it wished to 

opt-out of the DPP class in its entirety that DAP may not rely on a tolling agreement that only 

applies to members of the DPP class.” 9/19/14 Osborn letter at 4. But Thomson concedes 

there is little or no case law directly on point. Instead, Thomson cites to California cases 

describing waiver as “the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” 

But the cases cited do not support Thomson’s focus on intent alone. Waiver must be a 

knowing and intentional act, not an inadvertent statement or a mere expression of intent. An 

act as important as opting out of a class and waiving any rights to benefits of the class should

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 9 OF 12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 9 of 13
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

only be achieved by a clear and knowing opt-out notice. Accordingly, it is hard to imagine how 

the discovery Thomson seeks on the DAPs’ “intention” can be relevant to a waiver of rights. 

Additionally, the DPP/Thomson tolling agreement overlaps with the government action 

tolling period,8 indicating that reliance on the DPP/Thomson tolling agreement is unnecessary 

and discovery into the DAPs’ intent to opt-out of the DPP class is neither relevant nor 

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. 

All the DAPs except TechData have agreed to provide Thomson with their official optout notices. The undersigned finds that the official opt-out notices are sufficient responses to 

these discovery requests. If TechData has not yet produced its official opt-out notice to 

Thomson, it should do so promptly. 

 

III. Scope of the CRT Conspiracy

Thomson also seeks further responses to Interrogatories 13 and 14:

Interrogatory No. 13: Do YOU contend that Thomson Consumer participated in 

the alleged conspiracy to fix the price of and/or reduce the output of CDTs during the 

relevant period? If you do so contend, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS or EVIDENCE that 

support YOUR contention that Thomson Consumer participated in such a conspiracy 

regarding CDTs. 

Interrogatory No. 14: Do YOU contend that Thomson SA participated in the 

alleged conspiracy to fix the price of and/or reduce the output of CDTs during the 

relevant period? If YOU do so contend, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS or EVIDENCE that 

8 See Attachment A, Tolling Timeline. 

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 10 OF 12

 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 10 of 13
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

support YOUR contention that Thomson SA participated in such a conspiracy regarding 

CDTs.

The DAPs assert that they have identified the documents and evidence requested, including an 

enumerated list of documents. 10/3/14 Benson letter at 11. Thomson does not contest that 

the DAPs provided answers, but challenges the form of the answers: “Rather than respond to 

the discovery served, DAPs’ interrogatory answers pointed to an undifferentiated mass of 

documents and information concerning the Thomson Defendants’ alleged contacts with its 

former CPT competitors.” 10/10/14 Osborn letter at 3. Thomson asserts entitlement to “show 

that they did not participate in a conspiracy concerning a product [CDTs] they did not make.” Id. 

Apparently, Thomson seeks (a) identification of documents that evidence its participation in a 

CDT conspiracy; and (b) an admission by DAPs that they cannot identify any such evidence. Id. 

But Thomson has already received documents satisfying prong (a). And Thomson has already 

received admissions from the DAPs that they have no evidence that Thomson manufactured or 

sold CDTs or CDT Products during the Relevant Period. 10/10/14 Osborn letter at 2, n 2. Since

Thomson has already obtained adequate responses to Interrogatories 13 and 14, its motion to 

compel further responses to Interrogatories 13 and 14 should be denied. 

Accordingly, the undersigned ORDERS as follows:

Thomson’s motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 12 and 15

and DENIED without prejudice with respect to Interrogatories 1-11, 16 and Requests for 

Production 3-4. All DAPs shall serve updated responses to Interrogatories 12 and 15 no later 

than January 9, 2015. If, after receipt of the DAPs’ responses to Interrogatories 12 and 15, 

Thomson can articulate sufficient basis for discovery into the DAPs’ investigation into claims 

against Thomson (Interrogatory Nos 10-11, 16 and Requests for Production Nos 3-4), 

Thomson may renew its motion as to those requests no later than January 16, 2015. 

ORDER RE THOMSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 11 OF 12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 11 of 13
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Thomson's motions to compel are DENIED with respect to the remaining discovery 

requests because they are not relevant, not likely to lead to admissible evidence, protected 

by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine or have already received adequate 

responses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 Date: December'2--f 2014 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2A.. ____ ---'-c 

Vaughn R Walker 

United States District Judge (Ret) 

The Recommended Order of the Special Master is Accepted and Ordered I Denied I Modified. 

Date: _______ _ 

Honorable Samuel Conti 

United States District Judge 

ORDER RE THOMSON'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DAPS PAGE 12OF1 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 12 of 13
1. See 3/13/14 Order at 22, No. 3:07-cv-05944SC, Dkt 2440 (ND Cal 2014). 

2. See 3/13/14 Order at 24 (tolling federal claims).

3. See 3/13/14 Order at 29 (tolling federal and Donnelly Act claims from 2/10/09 to present).

4. DPP Thomson tolling agreement not addressed in 3/13/14 Order. 

Attachment A

Fraudulent 

Concealment 

Tolling1

Class Action 

Tolling 

American Pipe 2

Government Action Tolling

15 USC §16(i) 3

DPP Thomson 

Tolling Agreement 4

TOLLING TIMELINE

11/14/07 1/28/08 3/16/09 11/11 1/12

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3365 Filed 01/02/15 Page 13 of 13