Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01648/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01648-34/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE RUBBER CHEMICALS

ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. M:04-01648 MJJ (BZ)

THIRD DISCOVERY ORDER

Non-class plaintiffs PolyOne Corporation (PolyOne) and

Parker Hannifin Corporation (Parker) request the court to

compel defendant Chemtura (f/k/a Crompton) Corporation

(Crompton) to produce documents dated 1989 to 1994 (pre-1994

documents) and transactional sales data for the period from

1989 to October 1992 (pre-1992 sales data). For the following

reasons, PolyOne’s and Parker’s request is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.

Crompton does not dispute that PolyOne and Parker have

alleged a global conspiracy beginning at least as early as

January 1994 and continuing to at least December 2002. 

Whatever the scope of the original requests for the pre-1994

documents, by letter to the court dated February 14, 2006,

Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 325 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Parker and PolyOne have limited their request to documents

concerning the pricing, sale and marketing of Rubber Chemicals

from the files of 11 named individuals. As so limited, the

court disagrees that PolyOne and Parker have “failed to

identify with any specificity” the pre-1994 documents they

seek and finds the documents discoverable. The court agrees

with PolyOne and Parker that documents which predate the

alleged 1994 start of the conspiracy may be relevant to show

the formation of the conspiracy.

Crompton next argues that PolyOne’s and Parker’s request

for the pre-1992 sales data imposes a burden on Crompton to

produce paper invoices from unreasonably remote time periods

without identifying “how, or even if, their damages expert

would use this information.” See Opp., p. 2. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2) limits the scope of discovery if the court determines

that “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative” or “the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit,” including

considerations of “the importance of the proposed discovery in

resolving the issues.” PolyOne and Parker contend that

discovering sales data for the period before and after the

alleged conspiracy is “standard” in antitrust price-fixing

cases in order to calculate damages. While this may be true,

on this record, it does not justify the discovery sought. 

Crompton has already provided PolyOne and Parker with sales

data dating back to October 1992, which is as far back as

Crompton’s electronic sales data goes. Crompton has also

agreed to provide sales data in electronic form through

Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 325 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 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

1 Similar to this case, in Microcrystalline, the court

“acknowledge[d] that sales and pricing data . . . are needed in

order to prove liability and calculate damages” but was “not

convinced that plaintiffs require more than three years of such

data to conduct a meaningful ‘before and after’ analysis.” 221

F.R.D. at 430. PolyOne and Parker have only made general

statements that the requested discovery would be useful in

calculating damages whereas plaintiffs in Microcrystalline

submitted an expert’s declaration in support of their discovery

request.

3

December 2005, so PolyOne and Parker have, or will have, sales

data pre-dating and post-dating the plea period by

approximately three years. What PolyOne and Parker have

failed to explain is why the information they have for the 2-3

year period preceding the conspiracy is not sufficient for

their purposes and why additional discovery of non-electronic

data which would be costly to produce is warranted. See In re

Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation, 221 F.R.D.

428, 430 (E.D. Penn. 2004)(denying motion to compel sales and

pricing data discovery for additional three years because of

“the minimum potential benefits”).1 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by March 22, 2006, Crompton

shall produce the requested pre-1994 documents from the files

of the individuals identified on page 2 of Mr. Noss’ February

14, 2006 letter [doc # 305-1]. PolyOne’s and Parker’s request

to compel Crompton to produce transactional sales data for the

period from 1989 to October 1992 is DENIED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\IN RE RUBBER CHEMICALS\DISC.3.bz.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 325 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 3