Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420-76/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 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: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No.: 13-MD-2420 YGR

ORDER: (1) GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL; (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER;

AND (3) DENYING AS PREMATURE MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE 

 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 852, 881, 921 

This Order Relates to: 

Indirect Purchaser Actions

Defendants LG Chem Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. (the “LG defendants”) filed an 

objection to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu’s September 15, 2015 Order compelling the availability 

of Seok Hwan Kwak for a deposition. (Dkt. No. 852.) Supplemental briefing followed. (Dkt. Nos. 

881,1 902, 915, 921, 923.) Having considered the papers submitted, the Court DENIES the motion 

for relief from Judge Ryu’s September 15, 2015 Order. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), upon a party’s timely objection to a 

magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order, including discovery orders, the district judge must 

“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414-15 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(noting “[n]ondispositive issues include discovery sanctions,” which “may be imposed for failure to 

comply with an oral order”). Findings of fact are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous standard,” 

which “is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

 1

 Plaintiffs filed an unopposed administrative motion to seal portions of their opposition to 

the objection, namely descriptions of exhibits regarding Kwak’s employment with the LG 

defendants (including purportedly confidential compensation details). (Dkt. No. 881.) The exhibits 

in question were previously sealed by Magistrate Judge Ryu. (Dkt. No. 835.) Finding good cause 

for sealing the material in question in connection with this non-dispositive motion, the motion is 

GRANTED. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the 

Court admonishes the parties that in connection with subsequent motions to seal, the proposed 

redactions must be highlighted in the unredacted version of the document pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D). 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 938 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

committed.” See Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); see 

also Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). On the other hand, “[t]he 

magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo to determine whether they are contrary to 

law.” Perry, 268 F.R.D. at 348. 

Here, the LG defendants largely take issue with Judge Ryu’s factual findings regarding their 

conduct and the relevant employment status of Kwak. However, while the LG defendants present 

an alternative interpretation of the evidence before the Court, they have failed to demonstrate that 

any of Judge Ryu’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous.” Moreover, Judge Ryu applied the 

correct legal standards and her conclusions are appropriate in light of her factual findings. While 

the managing agent determination is typically made as of the time of the deposition in question, 

“courts have made exceptions to this general rule, for example when a corporation terminates an 

officer in light of pending litigation, plans to rehire the individual in another position, or an 

individual continues to act as a managing agent despite no longer being an employee.” Rundquist 

v. Vapiano SE, 277 F.R.D. 205, 208 (D.D.C. 2011). Judge Ryu appropriately found under the 

circumstances that Kwak remained a managing agent as of the relevant date. 

The deadline for a deposition provided in the September 15, 2015 Order has passed. 

Therefore, the Court now ORDERS the LG defendants to make Kwak available for a deposition by 

December 18, 2015. Otherwise, the Court will consider appropriate discovery sanctions.2

 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 852, 881, 921. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 2

 In light of this Order, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature the other 

defendants’ motion for leave to file a response to plaintiffs’ supplemental brief regarding possible 

evidentiary sanctions. (Dkt. No. 921.) 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 938 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2