Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03514/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03514-3/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 TABLEWARE ANTITRUST

LITIGATION.

 /

No C-04-3514 VRW

ORDER

By letters dated April 14, 2006 (Doc ##101, 102, 104),

the parties have presented a discovery dispute in accordance with

the streamlined practice of dealing with discovery disputes in lieu

of formalized motion practice.

In this action, plaintiffs allege that defendants

Federated Department Stores, Inc (“Federated”) and The May

Department Stores Co (“May”), which both operate department stores

across the United States, and defendants Lenox, Inc (“Lenox”) and

Waterford Wedgwood, USA (“Waterford”), which both produce fine

tableware sold in the United States, conspired with one another to

fix the price of tableware and to boycott Bed, Bath and Beyond

(“BBB”), a competitor of Federated and May. Plaintiffs contend

that this conspiracy began around June 2001. Doc #101 at 2. Based

on discovery materials, plaintiffs’ expert, Stanford economics

professor Roger G Noll, concludes that for the Lenox products, “the

anticompetitive harm arising from the refusal to deal probably had

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 106 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 4
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

dissipated sometime in late 2003.” Doc #102 (Noll Decl) at 7. 

Noll also concludes that “the effect of the conspiracy on the

availability of products in BBB ended much later for Waterford

Wedgwood, so that the effect of the refusal to deal ended in late

2004 at the earliest —— and may not have totally disappeared until

2005.” Id.

At issue presently is plaintiffs’ motion to compel

defendants to produce transactional and sales data for 2005 for

Waterford and Lenox tableware products. Doc #101 at 1. Plaintiffs

contend that this “transaction data is clearly relevant to

plaintiffs’ analysis of damages” because “[i]t is potential

evidence of post-conspiracy market prices * * *.” Id at 2. 

Defendants counter that (1) plaintiffs delayed in requesting this

data and are not entitled to the data on the eve of the extended

discovery cutoff (Doc #104 at 1-2); (2) requiring defendants to

produce this data would contradict a prior agreement between the

parties in which defendants agreed to provide data for the years

2000-2004 (id at 3) and (3) the requested data is only tangentially

related to plaintiffs’ allegations (id at 2-3). Defendants also

contend that they would face significant labor and operational

costs in producing the data. Id at 3 n4.

Plaintiffs do not appear to have delayed unduly in

requesting the 2005 data. Plaintiffs explain that only “during

discovery it was learned that Waterford did not begin selling its

higher-end Waterford line of tableware products at Bed Bath &

Beyond until around December 2004.” Doc #101 at 2. Although

defendants contend that plaintiffs “could have learned whether BBB

was carrying Waterford simply by walking into a participating BBB

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 106 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

(or even going online to BBB’s website),” Doc #104 at 2, this sort

of investigation would not have necessarily revealed when BBB began

carrying Waterford tableware. And in any event, plaintiffs’

February 17 and 24, 2006 discovery requests for the 2005 data (Doc

#101 at 3) were timely because they provided defendants over a

month to respond before the March 31, 2006 discovery cut-off date.

Additionally, the parties’ prior agreement regarding data

between 2000-2004 does not bear on plaintiffs’ current discovery

request for 2005 data. Although defendants have produced a letter

memorializing the parties’ negotiations and indicating that

plaintiffs only requested data up to August 23, 2004, the letter

does not suggest that plaintiffs were precluded from requesting

2005 data. Rather, these negotiations focused on whether

defendants would have to produce data from January 1, 2000, to the

beginning of the class period on May 1, 2001. Doc #104, Ex 1 at 1-

2. These negotiations do not govern whether plaintiffs could

subsequently request 2005 sales data, especially because plaintiffs

discovered only later that the alleged refusal to deal involving

Waterford continued until December 2004.

Finally, the court agrees with plaintiffs that the 2005

data is relevant to plaintiffs’ claims. As explained by Professor

Noll, the “before-after method” of determining the effects of an

anticompetitive act requires comparing “the price of a product

during the period that the anticompetitive act was in effect * * *

with [the price in] a period in which the act was not in effect.” 

Noll Decl at 4. If the alleged refusal to deal involving Waterford

continued until December 2004, the 2005 transactional and sales

data would be relevant for applying the before-after method.

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 106 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to

compel defendants to produce 2005 transactional and sales data for

Waterford tableware products. Given that plaintiffs admit that the

anticompetitive harm from the refusal to deal with Lenox tableware

products had likely dissipated by late 2003, Noll Decl at 7, the

court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion as to Lenox tableware products. 

The court also DENIES defendants’ request to shift costs of this

discovery to plaintiffs, Doc #104 at 3 n4, given that the discovery

is relevant and was timely requested by plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 106 Filed 05/25/06 Page 4 of 4