Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-md-02801/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-md-02801-33/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION MDL Case No. 17-md-02801-JD 

Case No. 14-cv-03264-JD

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2 FOR 

DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’

TRIAL

As discussed at the pretrial conference on February 13, 2020, the Court orders as follows 

for the jury trial of the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ case. 

I. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, VOIR DIRE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1. A final pretrial conference is set for February 27, 2020, at 11 a.m.

2. The Court will post its proposed voir dire and jury instructions soon, and the parties 

will have an opportunity to object or raise any concerns at the final pretrial 

conference.

II. TRIAL CONDUCT

1. During witness testimony, all individuals at the tables for counsel will remain 

seated and silent except for the attorneys handling the examination. There will be 

no entry into or departure from the counsel area by any personnel. 

2. No individual at the tables for counsel may react visibly or audibly to witness 

testimony. An individual who fails to comply with this requirement will be 

dismissed from the courtroom for the day, or may be dismissed for the remainder of 

the trial. 

3. No motions may be filed during trial without the Court’s express pre-approval on 

the record. A request must be made in court and not in an after-hours filing. 

Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 1140 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 6
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

III. PLEA AGREEMENTS AND GUILTY PLEAS

1. The parties will meet and confer on a stipulation of facts to be admitted from the 

relevant guilty pleas and plea agreements of certain defendants. 

2. The Holy Stone defendants and DPPs will file a stipulation to address the fact that 

the entity that pled guilty, Holy Stone Holdings Co., Ltd., is not a named defendant 

in this trial.

3. The amount of a criminal fine, or the length of sentence of imprisonment, are 

excluded from evidence. The fact that a fine or sentence was imposed is 

admissible. 

4. All documents from the criminal cases other than plea agreements and judgments 

are excluded, subject to exceptions for impeachment purposes, if warranted.

IV.CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AND FIFTH AMENDMENT INVOCATIONS

1. For co-conspirator statements, DPPs must file a proffer by 4:00 p.m. two trial days

before they intend to present them. For example, statements for Wednesday must 

be filed by 4:00 p.m. on Monday. Statements for Monday must be filed by 

4:00 p.m. on Thursday. The proffer must specify: (1) who made the statement; 

(2) the substance of the statement; (3) the facts showing that the declarant was a coconspirator; and (4) the facts showing that the statement was made during and in 

furtherance of the conspiracy. F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 

U.S. 171 (1987). The Court will either file an order, or rule from the bench, before 

the start of testimony. 

2. For Fifth Amendment adverse inferences, DPPs must file a proffer under the same 

timeline that specifies: (1) the question and answer from the deposition; (2) the 

foundation for attributing the witness’s statements to a defendant; (3) the 

supporting independent evidence; and (4) the substantial need for an adverse 

inference. Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 

2000).

Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 1140 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 6
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

Northern District of California

3. For both the co-conspirator and Fifth Amendment proffers, defendants may not file 

a response unless requested by the Court. 

V. DPPS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. MIL No. 1: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or argument re: representation 

agreements or arrangements between named plaintiffs and class counsel. 

2. MIL No. 2: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or argument (1) that plaintiffs 

were not injured or suffered reduced damages because they could pass on any 

overcharges to their customers; and (2) that defendants are facing exposure to 

multiple damages for the same overcharges.

3. MIL No. 3: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or reference to amounts and 

terms of prior settlements, EXCEPT that defendants may offer settlement 

cooperation provisions to show a witness’s bias or prejudice. In that event, the

Court will consider a limiting instruction to make sure the jury considers the 

evidence only to evaluate witness bias. 

4. MIL No. 4: GRANTED to exclude references to or evidence of the class’s right 

to recover treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

5. MIL No. 5: GRANTED, but the Court may revisit this if the evidence shows that 

(1) the DPPs knew there was a conspiracy, and (2) there were suppliers and 

substitutes outside the conspiracy from whom DPPs could have purchased 

capacitors. 

6. MIL No. 6: GRANTED to exclude any expert testimony on whether there was a 

conspiracy, but experts may testify about whether conduct and conditions were 

consistent with a conspiracy, as opposed to a competitive market. 

7. MIL No. 7: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or argument that price fixing has 

pro-competitive or pro-consumer benefits.

8. MIL No. 8: DENIED for any witness who is more than 100 miles from the trial or 

is outside the United States. FRCP 32(a)(4)(B). For those witnesses, exclusion of 

deposition testimony is denied, and no “missing witness” instruction will be given.

Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 1140 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 6
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

Northern District of California

9. MIL No. 9: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or argument inconsistent with 

the terms of plea agreements or admissions of fact in those agreements. 

10. MIL No. 10: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or argument of foreign 

regulatory actions, including raids or investigations.

11. MIL No. 11: GRANTED to exclude any evidence or argument that (1) the US 

DOJ closed its film capacitor investigation without bringing any charges, and 

(2) certain defendants did not face criminal charges in the DOJ’s electrolytic 

capacitor investigation, EXCEPT that defendants may be permitted to introduce 

such evidence in rebuttal if the DPPs mischaracterize the reach of guilty pleas and 

plea agreements.

12. MIL No. 12: DENIED. The limitations imposed by the FTAIA go to the merits 

of a Sherman Act claim and are properly a part of the jury’s determination of 

whether plaintiffs have proved their case. See United States v. Hsiung, 778 F.3d 

738 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court’s FTAIA I order in this case established guideline 

interpretations as a matter of law but did not make any findings of fact. 2016 WL 

5724960 (Sept. 30, 2016). DPPs will have to establish at trial, as a matter of fact 

and by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants’ conduct violated the 

Sherman Act (and was not excluded from the Act’s scope by the FTAIA). The 

Court’s prior legal rulings on the scope of import trade or import commerce, as 

well as the FTAIA’s domestic effects exception, will apply and control. As the 

Court previously noted, if the DPPs can establish that a category of trade comes in 

as import commerce, they need not also establish that it would have come in under 

the domestic effects exception. As our circuit has held, “‘import trade or import 

commerce’ with foreign nations falls squarely within the scope of the Sherman Act 

and is excluded from the FTAIA altogether.” Hsiung, 778 F.3d at 751.

VI. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. MIL No. 1: GRANTED re sentencing memos, transcripts, and other documents

from the criminal cases other than plea agreements and judgments.

Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 1140 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 6
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

Northern District of California

2. MIL No. 2: DENIED re rebuttal evidence for guilty pleas, but DPPs will be 

limited to the specifics of the plea agreements.

3. MIL No. 3: DEFERRED pending proffers.

4. MIL No. 4: DENIED, but DPPs may not use pejorative terms such as “thieves,”

“criminals” or “felons.” Terms such as “cartel,” “cartelists,” “conspirators” and 

“price fixers” may be used. DPPs need not refer to defendants by their full, 

individual corporate entity names throughout the trial, but will need to make sure 

the jury is not confused by names within corporate families. 

5. MIL No. 5: DEFERRED pending proof at trial re nature and scope of 

“subsequent remedial measures.” 

6. MIL No. 6: GRANTED IN PART re evidence relating to AVX’s European 

conduct. The DPPs represent that if evidence relates only to Europe, they will not 

seek to admit the evidence against AVX to show a propensity to conspire. Only

evidence that implicates the alleged conspiracy in the United States will be 

admitted. The Court will decide the issue on a case-by-case basis. The parties may 

file a single document with their respective positions if there are 10 or more 

documents presenting this issue for trial the next day. For a smaller subset, the 

Court will take the issue up at 8:30 a.m. on the trial day, outside the presence of the 

jury, or rule on the documents as they come up.

7. MIL No. 7: DEFERRED pending proffers.

8. MIL No. 8: TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION re KEMET Corporation’s sales 

evidence. 

9. MIL No. 9: DENIED re the AVX and Chemi-Con potential joint venture.

10. MIL No. 10 re Taitsu and NCC communications: WITHDRAWN by 

defendants.

11. MIL No. 11: GRANTED for evidence of foreign investigations, for the same 

reasons as for DPPs’ MIL No. 10. 

Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 1140 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 6
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

Northern District of California

VII. DAUBERT MOTION RE ATTORNEY JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

1. The Daubert motion is GRANTED, and attorney Russoniello’s testimony is 

excluded. The proposed testimony goes to legal issues that are properly addressed

through a jury instruction if necessary. The Court may revisit this ruling for 

rebuttal purposes, if warranted. 

VIII. OTHER ISSUES

1. Witnesses will be put on the witness stand only once. For example, if the DPPs 

call a witness whom defendants also intend to call, defendants’ direct examination 

of the witness will follow the DPPs’ examination of the witness. Defendants may 

not put the witness on again for the presentation of their case to the jury.

2. DPPs will identify by February 17, 2020, the defendant-affiliated witnesses DPPs 

intend to call, along with a good-faith commitment to the date and expected 

duration of testimony. 

3. DPPs may not make any statements to the jury about the fact that defendants NCC 

and UCC are represented by the same counsel.

4. The parties will meet and confer on the 30(b)(6) deposition testimony issue.

5. The parties will file by February 24, 2020, a comprehensive stipulation that 

contains all of their agreements on: (1) the party names by which the different 

defendant entities will be referred; (2) presentation of 30(b)(6) testimony; (3) date 

and time estimates for defendant-affiliated witnesses to be called by DPPs; and 

(4) all other issues on which they have agreed.

6. The parties will meet and confer on the exhibit list issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 1140 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 6