Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-502/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: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

ALL DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS 

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN 

LIMINE RE TESTIMONY OF 

KENNETH ELZINGA

Defendants have filed a Joint Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Testimony of Professor 

Kenneth Elzinga. ECF No. 3174 (“Elzinga Mot.”). The motion is fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 

3404 (“Elzinga Opp’n.”), 3522 (“Elzinga Reply”). The Court denies the motion. 

Professor Elzinga, an economist, submitted two reports in connection with this case. See

ECF No. 3173-6 at 5-224 (“Elzinga Report”), 226-388 (“Elzinga Rebuttal”). Defendants seek to 

exclude some portion of pages 79-151 of the Elzinga Report and of pages 37-62 of the Elzinga 

Rebuttal.1 Defendants argue that the challenged pages (1) reflect a narrative of the facts divorced 

from expert analysis, (2) contain improper opinions consisting of legal conclusions, and (3) offer 

improper opinion as to subjective intent, motive, or state of mind. Id. at 7-13, Elzinga Reply at 1-

11. 

As a preliminary matter, the expert report is hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. E.g., 

Arizona, Dep’t of Law, Civil Rights Div. v. ASARCO, L.L.C., 844 F. Supp. 2d 957, 965 (D. Ariz. 

 

1

Precisely which portions they seek to exclude is unclear: in the body of the motion, Defendants 

ask the Court to “preclude Professor Elzinga from presenting a narrative at trial, inferences about 

the existence of ‘agreements,’ and inferences about Defendants’ motive and intent.” ECF No. 

3174 at 21. Presumably, this is something less than all of the cited portions of Professor Elzinga’s 

report. Without further guidance, however, the Court proceeds to decide the motion as though it is 

directed to all of the cited portions.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4980 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2011), aff’d sub nom. Arizona v. Asarco LLC, 543 F. App’x 702 (9th Cir. 2013), adhered to on 

reh’g en banc, 773 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2014), and aff’d sub nom. Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 773 

F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, the jury is unlikely to see the document itself in the absence of a 

stipulation. If Professor Elzinga wants to relate his opinions or the basis of them to the jury, he 

will have to do so from the witness stand. 

Turning to the substance of Professor Elzinga’s report, his opinions generally are as 

follows: 

(1) Conditions in the CRT industry (including a high combined market share, 

impediments to entry, and a small elasticity of supply) would be conducive to the effective 

operation of a conspiracy to fix prices; 

(2) The Defendants and co-conspirators behaved in a manner that is consistent 

with the operation of a cartel and inconsistent with non-cooperative oligopolistic 

competition; and

(3) Based on the economic evidence and CRT industry conditions, he would 

expect the conspirators could effectively raise tube prices. 

ECF No. 3403-4 at 9 (summarizing opinions). 

The “narrative” to which Defendants object is a recitation of the facts Professor Elzinga 

has gathered from the evidence. He bases his expert opinions on these facts, and he is entitled to 

assume the truth of these facts in giving his opinions. If Plaintiffs fail to prove those facts, 

Defendants may comment on that failure to the jury and urge it to reject Dr. Elzinga’s opinions as 

not supported by the evidence. Moreover, “[e]conomists often explain whether conduct is 

indicative of collusion. For example, courts have held that an expert is permitted to testify that the 

‘climate’ of a specific market was consistent with a conspiracy.” U.S. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. 

of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO, 313 F. Supp. 2d 213, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing 

In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1355 (N.D. Ga. 2000) 

(denying in part defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony because the expert's 

proposed testimony “that the climate of the polypropylene market during the relevant time period 

was consistent with a finding that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices” would be 

“helpful to the trier of fact”) and Re/Max Int’l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 173 F.3d 995, 1003, 1010-

11 (6th Cir. 1999) (expert economist, after describing conditions in respective markets, 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4980 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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

opportunities for collusion, evidence pointing to collusion, terms of certain undisputed 

agreements, and market behavior, expressed opinion that there was concert of action consistent 

with plaintiff’s conspiracy theory)). That is what Professor Elzinga is doing here. 

With regard to Defendants’ concern that Professor Elzinga strays into expressing improper 

legal conclusions, “Rule 704(a) [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] states that opinion testimony is 

not objectionable on the grounds it embraces an ultimate issue in the case.” Charles Alan Wright 

& Victor Gold, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6284 (2d ed. 2016). “That said, ‘an expert witness 

cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law.’” 

Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004) (quotation

omitted). And “while there is the fine line between a permissible conclusion as to an ultimate 

issue of fact and an impermissible legal conclusion,” In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie Scotland on 

Dec. 21, 1988, 37 F.3d 804, 827 (2d Cir. 1994), here the line should not be difficult to draw. 

Professor Elzinga will be permitted to testify that both Defendants’ conduct and market conditions 

were consistent with a conspiracy to fix the prices of cathode ray tubes. He will not be allowed to 

testify that Defendants actually reached an agreement, or make statements about the subjective 

state of mind of Defendants’ employees and agents. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Testimony 

of Professor Kenneth Elzinga is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4980 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 3