Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-316/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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917 

Case No. C-07-5944-SC 

ORDER DENYING DIRECT ACTION 

PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED MOTION 

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

DECISION 

This Order Relates To: 

ALL DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF 

ACTIONS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Now before the Court is Direct Action Plaintiffs' ("DAPs") 

renewed motion to compel Defendants to produce a confidential 

decision (the "Decision") by the European Commission ("EC") 

reflecting its investigation into allegations of a global 

conspiracy to fix the prices for cathode ray tubes ("CRTs") and 

color picture tubes ("CPTs"). The motion is fully briefed1

 and 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is 

 

1

 ECF Nos. 2843 ("Mot."); 2873 ("Opp'n"); 2896 ("Reply"); 2919 

("Notice"). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 1 of 9
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

For the Northern District of California 

DENIED. DAPs also request, in the alternative, that the Court 

request the Decision directly from the EC. This request is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

II. BACKGROUND 

In this motion, DAPs renew their earlier request for an order 

compelling Defendants to produce the EC's Decision. The EC has not 

yet published a public or redacted version of the Decision, but 

various public documents confirm its broad contours. The Decision 

found the existence of two highly organized cartels comprised of, 

generally speaking, the same defendants here, which were aware of 

the illegality of their activities and ultimately successful in 

imposing price increases on consumers in the CRT and CPT 

industries. See ECF No. 2446 at Exs. 2-3. Based on these 

findings, the EC imposed a collective fine of more than € 1.47 

billion. Id. at Ex. 2. When the EC issued the Decision, it said 

it was working with the companies involved to prepare a public, 

redacted version of the Decision "with a view to a quick 

publication," although such a version has not been published to 

date. Id. at Ex. 4. 

The Decision has been the target of discovery in this 

litigation since 2010, but Defendants have refused to produce the 

Decision citing their belief that European Union ("EU") law and EC 

policy prohibit the disclosure of such decisions. DAPs disagree, 

and in March 2014 moved to compel production of the Decision before 

the Special Master. Id. at 1. The Court withdrew the reference 

and denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the interests 

of international comity outweighed the interest of disclosure. ECF 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 9
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

For the Northern District of California 

No. 2463 ("Prior Order") at 8. In doing so, the Court noted 

"Defendants seem optimistic about the EC's publication of a public 

version of the Decision before the close of discovery in this case. 

They are advised to assist in that task." Id. 

Now that discovery has closed and the Decision has still not 

been published publicly, DAPs renew their motion. In support of 

the motion, DAPs argue that because discovery has now closed and 

the trial date is rapidly approaching, the balance between comity 

and the importance of the Decision to this litigation has so 

shifted as to now justify production. Furthermore, DAPs point out 

that in another proceeding, Vichi v. Koninklijke Philips 

Electronics, N.V., 85 A.3d 725 (Del. Ch. 2014), the EC made a 

partially redacted version of the Decision available in response to 

a request for assistance from the Delaware Chancery Court. Id. at 

751 & n.180. As a result, DAPs submit that the balance of the 

relevant factors has changed such that the Court should order 

Defendants to produce a copy of the decision or, in the 

alternative, formally request the assistance of the EC in obtaining 

the Decision. Mot. at 2-3. Defendants oppose both requests. 

Shortly after this motion was fully briefed, the Court 

received a notice from the California Attorney General's (the "AG") 

office including official correspondence from the EC's Directorate 

General for Competition ("DG Competition") regarding the AG's 

efforts to obtain a redacted public version of the Decision. 

Notice at 2; Ex. 2 ("DG Competition Ltr."). In that 

correspondence, the EC explains its publication process and the 

variables that may impact the publication schedule. While the EC 

states that due to these variables "no precise publication date can 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 3 of 9
4 

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 

be given," "the case team gives its best effort in completing a 

public version of the decision still during this autumn or at least 

publishing a provisional version before the European Commission 

Christmas holidays break." DG Competition Ltr. at ¶ 15. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

 As it did with DAPs' earlier motion to compel, the Court 

applies the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Société 

Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987). In 

Aerospatiale, the Supreme Court held that courts assessing whether 

foreign law excuses noncompliance with a United States court's 

discovery orders should consider: 

(1) the importance to the . . . litigation of the 

documents or other information requested; (2) the degree 

of specificity of the request; (3) whether the 

information originated in the United States; (4) the 

availability of alternative means of securing the 

information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance 

with the request would undermine important interests of 

the United States, or compliance with the request would 

undermine important interests of the state where the 

information is located. 

Id. at 544 n.28; see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling 

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1992). This list is 

not exhaustive. The Ninth Circuit has also considered other 

factors, including "the extent and the nature of the hardship that 

inconsistent enforcement would impose upon the person, . . . [and] 

the extent to which enforcement by action of either state can 

reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule 

prescribed by that state." United States v. Vetco, Inc., 691 F.2d 

1281, 1287 (9th Cir. 1981); Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1475. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 4 of 9
5 

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 

IV. DISCUSSION 

As a preliminary matter, the weight of several of the 

Aerospatiale factors is unchanged from the Court's ruling on DAPs' 

earlier motion to compel. For example, the fact that the Decision 

originated in the EU still weighs against production. Prior Order 

at 5; see also In re Rubber Chems. Antitrust Litig., 486 F. Supp. 

2d 1078, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Additionally, specificity once 

again weighs in favor of production. Prior Order at 4. 

Despite Defendants' arguments to the contrary, the Decision 

also remains important to this litigation. While Defendants argue 

that subtle differences in the cartel conduct at issue in the 

Decision and the allegations here, as well as the extensive 

discovery already completed, render the Decision only minimally 

important, the Court's earlier findings on this factor need not be 

disturbed: "the Decision is relevant, because DAPs' and other 

plaintiffs' allegations in this case have always concerned the 

international character of the alleged CRT conspiracy." Prior 

Order at 5. In short, regardless of how the EC refers to the 

conspiracies in the Decision, the underlying conduct -- price 

fixing in the CRT and CPT markets -- indisputably overlaps with the 

conduct at issue here. Furthermore, the EC's decision is over 350 

pages long, DG Competition Ltr. at ¶ 12, and includes a 

"comprehensive recitation of facts that are determined through 

lengthy and thorough investigative and adjudicatory processes." 

Mot. at 3. While extensive discovery has taken place to date, the 

factual detail contained in the Decision is likely to be of 

significant value in helping Plaintiffs organize their case and may 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 5 of 9
6 

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 

identify previously undiscovered competitor contacts or other 

highly relevant conduct. Accordingly, this factor continues to 

weigh in favor of disclosure. 

Despite the Decision's importance to this litigation and the 

rapidly approaching trial date, the Court remains convinced that 

denying the motion to compel is the right course for three reasons. 

First, EU law and EC policy remain unchanged: "disclosure of the 

Decision would violate foreign law, frustrate the EC's 

investigations of antitrust cases, and subject Defendants to harsh 

sanctions at home and abroad." Prior Order at 7; see also id. at 

7-8 (reviewing specific EU law and EC regulations and the 

importance of the DG Competition to the EU's antitrust 

enforcement). These concerns are not insignificant, as they 

threaten to undermine the DG Competition, "the European Union's 

primary antitrust law enforcer." Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro 

Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 250 (2004). Furthermore, as the Court 

previously found, the importance of the EC's leniency program, and 

cooperation between the EC and United States law enforcement 

agencies including the Department of Justice, also militate against 

disclosure. Prior Order at 7-8. Second, and relatedly, having 

reviewed the DG Competition's letter, the Court sees no reason to 

short-circuit the EC's publication process when the EC appears 

confident that at least a provisional version of the Decision may 

be published in approximately one month. Even if, as the DG 

Competition speculates, the EC is only able to publish a 

provisional version prior to the EC's Christmas holiday break, that 

will still obviate any need to offend EU law and EC policy by 

ordering production of the Decision. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 6 of 9
7 

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 

The final reason for denying the motion, the availability of 

the Decision outside this demand for production, merits separate 

consideration. Since the Court's prior decision, DAPs point out 

that the EC made a partially redacted version of the Decision 

available in response to a request for assistance from the Delaware 

Chancery Court. See Vichi, 85 A.3d at 751 & n.180. In the Court's 

view this actually cuts against granting the motion to compel 

because it suggests that, contrary to the Court's previous 

conclusion, there actually is a means of accessing the Decision 

"without contravening EU law and policy." Prior Order at 6. 

Accordingly, the Court finds this factor now weighs against 

granting the motion to compel. 

Considering the factors identified in Aerospatiale, the Court 

concludes that comity, the origin of the Decision, and the 

availability of the Decision through other means outweigh the other 

factors. Additionally, the Court does not envision that the weight 

of these factors will change significantly enough to justify 

compelling the disclosure of the Decision directly from Defendants 

regardless of the status of this case. Accordingly, the motion to 

compel is DENIED with prejudice. 

Nonetheless, the Court must still address Plaintiffs' 

alternative proposal that the Court request the Decision directly 

from the EC as in the Vichi case. Defendants suggest the procedure 

adopted in Vichi would be inappropriate here for two reasons: (1) 

the EC already sent a letter to Defendants here opposing the 

disclosure of the Decision, thus suggesting that it would oppose a 

request from the Court, and (2) the Decision was more central to 

the Vichi litigation. The Court disagrees with these arguments. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 7 of 9
8 

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 

First, the letter Defendants refer to, ECF No. 2449-4 ("Van 

Ginderachter Ltr."), sent by the DG Competition was intended "to 

draw your attention to the fact that any such disclosure of [the 

Decision on a motion to compel] would be made in contravention of 

Commission rules and state policy on this issue." Id. at 1 

(emphasis added). In other words, the letter was intended to 

inform the parties and the Court that disclosure of the Decision by 

the Defendants would contravene EC policy and EU law. Given the 

contrary evidence in Vichi and the fact that this letter was 

specifically targeted at disclosure of the Decision by the 

Defendants, there is no reason to conclude the EC's response would 

be the same if the Court were to request the EC provide the 

Decision directly. Second, even though, unlike Vichi, this case 

does not involve the question of whether the Decision has any 

collateral estoppel effect, the Decision still is "directly 

relevant to U.S. liability issues." Opp'n at 8. After all, the 

Decision details conduct that Plaintiffs argue is actionable under 

United States antitrust laws. Furthermore, there simply is no 

basis on the face of the Vichi opinion for speculating as to why 

the EC agreed to provide a version of the Decision. Without more, 

the Court cannot conclude that the EC would refuse to provide the 

Decision here. 

Nevertheless, the Court believes issuing such a request at 

this time would be inappropriate in light of the EC and DG 

Competition's statements that they should be able to publish at 

least a provisional version of the Decision by their Christmas 

holiday. As a result, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request without 

prejudice. If at least a provisional version of the Decision has 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 8 of 9
9 

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 

still not been published following the EC's Christmas holiday, 

Plaintiffs may file a motion seeking the issuance of such a 

request. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the 

factors identified in Aerospatiale weigh against granting 

Plaintiffs' the motion to compel. Because the Court does not 

envision that the weight of these factors will change significantly 

enough to justify compelling the disclosure of the Decision 

directly from Defendants, the motion to compel is DENIED with 

prejudice. 

 Plaintiffs' alternative request that the Court seek the 

Decision directly from the EC is DENIED without prejudice. If at 

least a provisional version of the Decision has still not been 

published following the EC's "Christmas holidays break," Plaintiffs 

may file a motion seeking the issuance of such a request. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: November 20, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3133 Filed 11/20/14 Page 9 of 9