Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-489/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 

Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

[Stipulating parties listed on signature page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

MDL No. 1917

This Document Relates To:

Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp. v. 

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv05514

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY 

WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4754 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 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 

-1- Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) are 

the only remaining plaintiffs in Case No. 11-cv-05514 (“Sears/Kmart case”);

WHEREAS, LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) is the only remaining defendant in the 

Sears/Kmart case;

WHEREAS, the trial in the Sears/Kmart case is set for January 9, 2017, see ECF No. 4658; 

WHEREAS, both Plaintiffs and LGE seek to call witnesses at trial to summarize 

voluminous evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Admit Testimony of Summary Witness is fully briefed 

and pending, see ECF No. 3558, 3671, 3757-04; 

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016, the Court granted LGE’s motion for leave to file a Motion to 

Admit Summary Witness Testimony and ordered that any such motion be filed by August 12, 

2016, see ECF No. 4623; 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs and LGE will serve a revised list of trial 

exhibits on August 8, 2016 and September 15, 2016, respectively; 

WHEREAS, the parties’ revised exhibit list will indicate, subject to revision, which 

documents they intend to have summarized by their summary witness at trial;

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to an exchange on November 18, 2016 of summaries 

to be used in their case-in-chief at trial;

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-12, PLAINTIFFS AND LGE, BY AND THROUGH 

THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, Plaintiffs may call Daniel Gill, a 

former Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) forensic examiner and a current Director in the 

Global Investigations and Compliance practice at Navigant Consultants, Inc., to serve as a 

summary witness subject to any objections by LGE as to the admissibility of the specific 

summaries offered and the use for summary purposes of the specific documents summarized by 

the Mr. Gill.

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, LGE may call Robert Cunnane, a 

former Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agent, to serve as a summary witness subject to 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4754 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 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 

-2- Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

any objections by Plaintiffs as to the admissibility of the specific summaries offered and the use 

for summary purposes of specific documents summarized by Mr. Cunnane. 

3. Neither Mr. Gill nor Mr. Cunnane will testify as experts or provide expert opinion 

testimony. Rather, their roles will be limited to reviewing, tabulating, and summarizing 

voluminous, admissible documents provided to them by counsel according to certain objective 

criteria which appear on the face of the documents. Each party reserves the right to object to 

testimony offered by Mr. Gill or Mr. Cunnane to the extent that it does not summarize 

voluminous, admissible documents and/or constitutes or reflects inadmissible expert testimony, 

opinions, or legal conclusions. 

4. Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Gill’s summary witness testimony at trial will focus on 

three categories of documents: (1) documents reflecting the corporate structure of various 

Defendants and co-conspirators; (2) documents reflecting the number, dates, attendees, location, 

and words and numbers used in the documents that Plaintiffs contend reflect minutes of the 

competitor meetings and communications in furtherance of the price-fixing conspiracy at issue; 

and (3) enforcement actions relating to the CRT and TFT-LCD price-fixing conspiracies brought 

by global competition authorities such as the U.S. Department of Justice and the European 

Commission. LGE objects to the third category of documents and any related testimony as 

irrelevant and inadmissible under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and 

reserves the right to argue that any related testimony should be excluded from trial for the reasons 

set forth in pending motions in limine (ECF Nos. 3556, 3558 [DAPs’ MIL #11, 14], 3572, 3583, 

3589). LGE also objects to Mr. Gill’s reliance on discovery responses by former co-defendants in 

the case.

5. LGE anticipates that Mr. Cunnane will provide summary witness testimony at trial 

regarding his work to identify, tabulate, and summarize documents listed in Exhibit A to 

Plaintiffs’ Objections and Responses to Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.’s First Set of 

Interrogatories, dated August 20, 2014, as supplemented on November 7, 2014 (“Exhibit A 

Documents”) that reflect two or more manufacturers’ size-specific, number-specific prices either 

being charged or to be charged in the future for CPTs (TV tubes) with sizes of 32” or above.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4754 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 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 

-3- Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

6. LGE reserves the right to argue that any testimony by Mr. Gill related to Plaintiffs’ 

standing to sue under the ownership/control exception may be presented only in a bench trial on 

those issues. Plaintiffs reserve the right to argue that testimony related to the ownership/control 

exception may be presented in a jury trial.

7. The parties reserve the right to cross-examine the other side’s summary witness. 

Further, each side’s summary witness may offer alternate summaries in response to any summaries 

offered by the other side’s summary witness or in response to arguments raised at trial. The nature 

of this testimony will depend on the testimony and arguments presented at trial.

8. By this stipulation, the parties are not seeking pre-admission of any trial exhibits. 

They are simply stipulating to the presentation of summary testimony of voluminous documents 

along the above lines. This stipulation is without prejudice to the Court’s ability to limit or curtail 

summary witness testimony based on motions in limine, objections at trial, or based on any 

objections to exhibits, charts, or summaries made prior to or at trial. Further, this Stipulation does 

not constitute an admission by any Party that the documents to be summarized are relevant or 

otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Each document that forms the basis of 

any summary witness testimony offered pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 must be 

admissible as against the other party.

9. Plaintiffs will withdraw as moot their Motion to Admit Testimony of Summary 

Witness, ECF No. 3558, with respect to the Sears/Kmart case, and LGE agrees not to file a Motion 

to Admit Summary Witness Testimony pursuant to the Court’s order on LGE’s motion for leave to 

file such a motion, ECF No. 4623. This stipulation does not withdraw the Motion to Admit 

Testimony of Summary Witness, ECF No. 3558, as to any other party to that motion in other 

actions in this MDL.

10. This stipulation shall not be introduced into evidence during the jury trial or read to 

the jury during trial, and it shall not be relied on to support an entitlement to any relief not 

expressly contemplated by the terms of this stipulation. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4754 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 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 

-4- Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

Dated: August 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

 /s/ Miriam Kim 

Brad Brian (State Bar No. 079001) 

brad.brian@mto.com 

Gregory J. Weingart (State Bar No. 157997) 

gregory.weingart@mto.com 

Susan E. Nash (State Bar No. 101837) 

susan.nash@mto.com 

E. Martin Estrada (State Bar No. 223802) 

martin.estrada@mto.com 

Miriam Kim (State Bar No. 238230) 

miriam.kim@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile:(213) 687-3702

Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. 

KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.

 /s/ Samuel J. Randall 

Richard Alan Arnold, Esquire 

William J. Blechman, Esquire

Douglas Patton, Esquire 

Samuel J. Randall, Esquire 

Christina Ceballos-Levy

KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Suite 1100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: (305) 373-1000 

Fax: (305) 372-1861 

E-mail: rarnold@knpa.com 

 wblechman@knpa.com 

 dpatton@knpa.com 

 srandall@knpa.com 

ccl@knpa.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. 

and Kmart Corp.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4754 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 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 

-5- Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY WITNESSES AT SEARS/KMART TRIAL

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that the concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

It is so stipulated and agreed to by the parties. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2016 

Hon. Jon S. Tigar 

United States District Judge

31580435

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4754 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 6