Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-521/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: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

INDIRECT-PURCHASER ACTIONS;

Sharp Electronics Corp., et. al. v. Hitachi 

Ltd., et al., No. 13-cv-01173;

Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 

et al., No. 11-cv-01656;

Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor 

SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05724;

Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 11-cv05502;

Siegel v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv05261;

Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 

al., No. 11-cv-05513;

Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor SA, 

et al., No. 13-cv-05264;

Target Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, 

Ltd., et al., No. 11-cv-05514;

Target Corp. v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 

13-cv-05686;

Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al. v. Chunghwa

Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al., No. 11-cv-05514;

Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al. v. Technicolor 

SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05262;

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 12
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

Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 

al., No. 11-cv-06275;

Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et 

al., No. 13-cv-05727;

Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 

11-cv-06276;

Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al., 

No. 13-cv-05726;

CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 

al., No. 11-cv-06396;

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. 

v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 12-cv-02648;

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. 

v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05725;

Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., 

et al., No. 12-cv-02649;

Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor 

SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05668;

Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., 

No. 13-cv-00157

Viewsonic Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, 

Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-02510.

Before the Court is Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America (―PNA‖) and 

Panasonic Corporation‘s (―Panasonic Corp.‖) (collectively ―Defendants‖) Motion for Summary 

Judgment. ECF No. 2998-4. The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual history is well known to the parties and has been recited in the Court‘s prior 

orders. By way of summation, this case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices 

of cathode ray tubes (―CRTs‖), a core component of tube-style screens for common devices 

including televisions and computer monitors. The conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to 

November 25, 2007 (the ―Conspiracy Period‖), involved many of the major companies that 

produced CRTs, and allegedly resulted in overcharges of billions of U.S. dollars to domestic 

companies that purchased and sold CRTs or products containing CRTs (―CRT Finished 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 12
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

Products‖). A civil suit was originally filed in 2007, ECF No. 1, consolidated by the Joint Panel 

on Multidistrict Litigation shortly thereafter, see ECF No. 122, assigned as a Multidistrict 

Litigation case (―MDL‖) to Judge Samuel Conti, see id., and ultimately transferred to the 

undersigned, see ECF No. 4162. In addition to two class actions, this MDL involves various 

direct actions from individual plaintiffs who opted out of the class actions, including the DAPs 

that oppose the present motions. Each DAP alleges that it bought at least one CRT Finished 

Product from a Defendant or an entity owned or controlled by a Defendant.

The following facts are relevant specifically to the instant motion. Panasonic Corp., which 

also operated under the name Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd., manufactured CRTs during 

the Conspiracy Period. ECF No. 2998-4 at 11. Panasonic Corp. exited the CDT business in 2001 

and the CPT business by April 2003. ECF No. 2998-9 at 9; ECF No. 2998-6 at 3. PNA was the 

CRT sales subsidiary of Panasonic Corp in the United States. 2998-4 at 11. PNA, then called 

Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, owned a CPT factory called Matsushita Display 

Devices Company of America, and exited the CRT business in 2003. ECF No. 2998-11 at 2.

Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that there is no direct evidence that 

either Panasonic Corp. or PNA participated in the conspiracy, nor is there circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to support an inference of participation. ECF No. 2998-4. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when a ―movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

―A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by‖ 

citing to depositions, documents, affidavits, or other materials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a). A 

party also may show that such materials ―do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine 

dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.‖ Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). An issue is ―genuine‖ only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable 

fact-finder to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–

49 (1986). A fact is ―material‖ if the fact may affect the outcome of the case. Id. at 248. ―In 

considering a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 3 of 12
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

credibility determinations, and is required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the 

non-moving party. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997).

Where the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, 

that party bears the initial burden of producing evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict if 

uncontroverted at trial. See C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests, Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 

480 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the party moving for summary judgment would not bear the burden of 

proof at trial, that party bears the initial burden of either producing evidence that negates an 

essential element of the non-moving party's claim, or showing that the non-moving party does not 

have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. If 

the moving party satisfies its initial burden of production, then the non-moving party must produce 

admissible evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Nissan Fire & 

Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2000). The non-moving party 

must ―identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.‖ 

Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, it is not the duty of the district court 

―to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.‖ Id. ―A mere scintilla of evidence 

will not be sufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment; rather, the 

non-moving party must introduce some significant probative evidence tending to support the 

complaint.‖ Summers v. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and 

internal quotations omitted). If the non-moving party fails to make this showing, the moving party 

is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

―In antitrust cases, these general standards are applied even more stringently and summary 

judgments granted more sparingly.‖ Beltz Travel Serv., Inc. v. Int‘l Air Transp. Ass‘n, 620 F.2d 

1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1980). As a general matter, ―plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of 

their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the 

slate clean after scrutiny of each. . . . The character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged 

by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole.‖ Cont‘l 

Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 698–99 (1962) (alterations omitted). 

Nonetheless, ―conduct as consistent with permissible competition as with illegal conspiracy does 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 4 of 12
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

not, standing alone, support an inference of antitrust conspiracy.‖ Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). Rather, to defeat a motion for summary judgment, 

―a plaintiff seeking damages for a violation of § 1 must present evidence  ̳that tends to exclude the 

possibility‖ that the alleged conspirators acted independently.‘‖ Id. (quoting Monsanto Co. v. 

Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764 (1984)). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Panasonic Corp.’s Participation in the Conspiracy

Plaintiffs have amassed sufficient evidence suggesting that Panasonic Corp. participated in 

the CRT conspiracy to defeat summary judgment.1 

1. Group Meetings

First, as Defendants acknowledge, a Panasonic employee, Allen Chang, attended a group 

meeting on March 12, 1997, where various defendants in this case conspired to fix CRT prices. 

ECF No. 3248-13 at 5-6.2 Minutes from the meeting document that the attendees discussed future 

CRT production levels, agreed on CRT price increases, and planned for future group meetings.3 

ECF No. 3248-11 at 3-4. For example, the minutes contain a chart with CRT production levels for 

March and April, even though the meeting took place mid-March. Id. That chart includes ―MEC,‖ 

a Panasonic entity. Id. The minutes also note that ―[e]ach maker indicated that a price increase 

would be inevitable,‖ although no Panasonic entity is listed among those who agreed on the 

―bottom price of $67.‖ Id.

4

 

 

1

The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs‘ evidence is direct or circumstantial. The Court need not 

address that distinction here, because even construed as circumstantial, Plaintiffs‘ evidence is 

more consistent with participation in the conspiracy than with procompetitive, independent 

behavior. 

2

Plaintiffs do not argue that Defendants were present at other group meetings, so the Court 

disagrees with Defendants‘ claim that it was disingenuous for Plaintiffs to omit deposition 

testimony to that effect. ECF No. 3457-4 at 7.

3

―It is understood that there would be a top-level meeting in Korea on 3/22. Everybody should get 

together again after the meeting to have more communications.‖ Id.

4

―Later on, SDD, LG, PH, and CPT all indicated the bottom price of $67 for MPRII‘s.‖ Id.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 5 of 12
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

Defendants respond by arguing that Chang ―attended the meeting only for a  ̳very short 

time,‘ leaving at the first break because he concluded he did not belong there,‖ ECF No. 2998-4 at 

13, but the evidence is not entirely consistent with this characterization. Chang testified that the 

―only reason‖ he left the meeting early was ―because the attendees who were present there, they 

all had pretty high ranking, high titles. And Samsung was complaining that my title ranking was 

too low.‖ ECF No. 3248-13 at 5-6. Chang‘s departure does not suggest that Panasonic was 

uninvolved in the conspiracy, but only that the other attendees preferred someone higher up in the

Panasonic organization. And although minutes do not mention any Panasonic entity in describing 

the price agreement, the fact that Chang must have offered Panasonic‘s future production 

information suggests that he participated in the meeting before leaving. His participation, even if 

isolated, is more consistent with anticompetitive conduct than with legitimate business activity.

2. Bilateral Meetings

Next, Plaintiffs offer evidence that Chang and his supervisor, Michael Hsu, attended 

numerous bilateral meetings during the Conspiracy Period. Hsu testified that he attended over ten 

meetings with Chunghwa, five to six meetings with Hitachi Taiwan, five to six meetings with 

Toshiba Taiwan, and two or three meetings with LG Taiwan. ECF No. 3248-12 at 4-14. Chang 

also described attending bilateral meetings with competitors, including Chunghwa. ECF No. 

3248-13 at 7.

Defendants admit that some bilateral meetings took place,5but dispute Plaintiffs‘ claim

that their purpose was to unlawfully convey information and agreements related to the CRT 

conspiracy reached in the larger group meetings. Defendants emphasize that Hsu described his 

goal during the meetings as obtaining information about the CRT ―market situation and customer 

situation,‖ both permissible, procompetitive topics. ECF No. 3457-6 at 4. Defendants also note 

that C.C. Liu, a Chunghwa representative who attended bilateral meetings with Hsu, testified that 

his ―visits to Matsushita were not tied with the group meetings.‖ ECF No. 3248-8 at 11. 

 

5

In light of this testimony, the Court disagrees with Defendants‘ claim that ―Plaintiffs only cite 

evidence of seven scattered bilateral meetings.‖ ECF No. 3457-4 at 18.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 6 of 12
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

Northern District of California

But there is also considerable contrary evidence that the bilateral meetings were used to 

facilitate Panasonic Corp.‘s participation in the conspiracy. Chang, the Panasonic employee who 

attended the group meeting, described the bilateral meetings in anticompetitive terms, explaining 

that his boss expected him to ―obtain the shipment volume of the finished products‖ of Panasonic

Corp.‘s competitors. ECF No. 3248-13 at 4. And Chang responded ―yes‖ when asked whether he 

recalled that ―from time to time in your meetings with Chunghwa they would ask you to follow 

the agreements reached on pricing at group meetings with your other competitors.‖ ECF No. 

3248-13 at 7. Moreover, Hsu admitted that that, in retrospect, the bilateral meetings were 

―inappropriate,‖ and testified that ―I think to hold meetings with competitors was not the right 

thing, basically.‖ ECF No. 3248-12 at 9-10.

The temporal proximity of the group and bilateral meetings, together with notes from those 

meetings, further supports Plaintiffs‘ version of events. For example, notes from one of the CRT 

group meetings describe how Samsung ―[v]isited Matsushita July l6 as the representative of 

Japanese cathode ray tube (CRT) representative and provided information on the agreements 

reached by 5 Korean and Taiwan companies.‖ ECF No. 3248-14 at 5. Similarly, several weeks 

after a July 1998 group meeting to dismiss ―maintaining the price of 17‖ [CRTs] as 93 dollars,‖ 

ECF No. 3248-21 at 4, there is evidence that Chunghwa filled Panasonic representatives in on the 

agreement during a bilateral meeting. Chunghwa‘s notes from the bilateral meeting state:

Director Liu [of Chunghwa] explained that starting on August 1, price increase has 

effectively been implemented. Based on current market condition and in order to 

pursue a profitable operation, another price increase is being brewed for October l. 

Actual scale of increase shall be confirmed at beginning of September. Regarding 

the suspicion on possible oversupply condition on 17‖, Director Liu also indicated 

to Matsushita its determination on controlling the price by volume; the entire 

industry would be jointly to control output volume in order to maintain pricing. . . . 

Mr. Hsu said he will notify Chunghwa when price increase is confirmed this week. 

ECF No. 3248-20 at 4. Liu described things somewhat more ambiguously in his deposition when 

asked whether ―somebody at the glass meetings/group meetings [was] assigned to go talk to 

Matsushita.‖ He responded, ―[t]heoretically there must be one. However, it was not a major 

player, therefore, not many times this company was approached . . . . We would have a general 

visit to that company talking our situations, their situations. Also the agreement we reached.‖ 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 7 of 12
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

Northern District of California

ECF No. 3248-8 at 9-10 (emphasis added). This testimony and Chunghwa‘s notes contradict 

Liu‘s testimony, emphasized by Defendants, that his ―visits to Matsushita were not tied with the

group meetings.‖ ECF No. 3248-8 at 11. 

At bottom, there is conflicting evidence about the purpose of the bilateral meetings. A 

jury, not the Court, should determine whose characterization of those meetings is most credible. 

Therefore, in deciding whether there are disputes of material fact as to Panasonic Corp.‘s 

participation in the conspiracy, the Court assumes that the purpose of the bilateral meetings was to 

loop Panasonic Corp. into the details of the CRT conspiracy, not to exchange benign market 

information.

In addition to arguing generally that Panasonic employees attended bilateral meetings with 

a conspiratorial purpose, Plaintiffs argue specifically that there is evidence that Panasonic Corp.

actually agreed to follow the price agreements set at the group meetings. As with the purpose of 

the meetings, there is conflicting evidence about Panasonic Corp.‘s reaction when asked by 

competitors to follow CRT price agreements. A memorandum documenting an April, 23 1997 

group meeting highlights the confusion. One section of the memo states that ―Taiwan Matsushita 

did not agree with the price increase of its headquarters,‖ ECF No. 3248-9 at 3, while section said 

―[a]s long as it is sure that all other CRT makers have raised prices, MEC will immediately 

follow,‖ id. at 4. A similar contradiction appears in a memo regarding a bilateral meeting between 

Panasonic and Chunghwa. Defendants emphasize the note that ―MEC hoped that there would be 

greater momentum in quantity for 14" and 15" and therefore would not be actively raising their 

prices,‖ ECF No. 3248-23 at 4, while Plaintiffs focus on a handwritten comment on the same 

document saying ―SDD Na. Na said last week he met MEC‘s Japanese boss in Korea who said 

MEC would definitely raise prices on May 1st,‖ id. at 3. And Samsung‘s notes from a 1998 group 

meeting report that Matsushita representatives ―[e]xpressed their intention to participate actively‖ 

in the agreements reached by 5 Korean and Taiwan companies.‖ ECF No. 3248-14 at 5. Those 

notes end with the bullet point: ―Caution against ANTITRUST LAWS.‖ Id. Which of these 

conflicting notes reveals the truth regarding Panasonic Corp.‘s agreement is a disputed fact that a 

jury must resolve. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 8 of 12
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

Northern District of California

Defendants argue that a good portion of this evidence relates to Panasonic‘s Taiwan 

affiliate, not to Panasonic Corp. itself. And it is true that Chang and Hsu were both employees of 

Panasonic‘s Taiwan affiliate. But this argument is ultimately unsuccessful for several reasons. 

First, Panasonic Corp. is the parent company of the Taiwanese affiliate. ECF No. 3457-4 at 11. 

Of course, this corporate relationship alone is insufficient to impose liability on Panasonic Corp., 

United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 60 n.7, 61 (1998), but the content of the meetings 

suggests that Chang and Hsu did not participate in the group and bilateral meetings solely on 

behalf of their affiliate entity. For example, Chunghwa‘s notes from a bilateral meeting describe 

price agreements for 21‖ CRTs, ECF No. 3248-16 at 3-4, which Plaintiffs argue were one of the 

primary products in Panasonic‘s U.S. portfolio, ECF No. 3248-19 at 3. Other Chunghwa notes 

reference Panasonic‘s American business directly, reporting that ―U.S. (AMEC) will add one 

production line of 17‘ CDT at beginning of ‘98.‖ ECF No. 3248-17 at 3. Moreover, some of the 

notes from bilateral and other meetings discussed above refer to ―MEC,‖ ―Matsushita,‖ or 

Panasonic‘s ―headquarters‖ without specifying which entity they mean. Particularly given 

Panasonic Corp.‘s position at the top of the Panasonic organizational chart, ECF No. 2998-10 at 2, 

these facts lead the Court to reject Panasonic Corp.‘s efforts to distance itself from Plaintiffs‘

evidence.

In light of Plaintiffs‘ evidence that Panasonic Corp. participated in group and bilateral 

meetings where production and price agreements were discussed and agreed to, Panasonic Corp. is 

not entitled to summary judgment. Despite Defendants‘ efforts to persuade the Court otherwise, 

Citric Acid II does not direct a different result. In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1097 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (―Citric Acid II‖). There ―although the evidence ma[de] clear that representatives of 

the admitted conspirators gathered in  ̳unofficial‘ meetings to fix prices and to allocate market 

shares—often in the same city as, and within a few days of, officially scheduled [trade group] 

meetings—there [wa]s no evidence that illegal activities took place during [trade group] meetings 

attended by [the defendant‘s] representatives.‖ Id. ―Nor [wa]s there evidence that [the defendant] 

participated in any of the  ̳unofficial‘ meetings.‖ Id. The same is not true here. Plaintiffs have 

presented considerable evidence that Panasonic Corp. representatives attended group and bilateral 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 9 of 12
10

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

meetings where they exchanged confidential production and price information and agreed to 

follow illegal price agreements. 

Instead, the facts here are more similar to In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 

12-CV-4114 SI, 2013 WL 3387652 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013), in which the court rejected defendant 

Toshiba‘s motion for summary judgment and distinguished In re Citric Acid II. The court 

concluded that although Toshiba did not participate in any group, or ―crystal,‖ meetings, 

―circumstantial evidence exists from which a jury could conclude that  ̳Toshiba was informed of 

the decisions reached at crystal meetings through bilateral communications with other []

manufacturers[,] ... [and] Toshiba received pricing information from its competitors, shared its 

own pricing information, and was aware of its wrongdoing.‘‖ Id. at *1-2. Like Panasonic Corp., 

―Toshiba assert[ed that] these exchanges [we]re legitimate exchanges of information,‖ but the 

LCD court concluded that ―such disputes regarding the interpretation of evidence [were] not 

appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.‖ Id. The same logic applies here. Panasonic 

Corp. may ultimately prove that Chang left the group meeting because Panasonic Corp. had no 

interest in the conspiracy, that the bilateral meetings were unrelated to the group meetings, or that 

no Panasonic Corp. representative ever agreed to raise prices to advance the conspiracy. But 

given the evidence before the Court now, those facts are all disputed ones that a jury must 

resolve.6 

B. PNA’s Participation in the Conspiracy 

PNA presents a different situation. With one small exception, the evidence catalogued 

above neither relates directly to PNA nor involves PNA employees. Unlike Panasonic Corp., 

there is no evidence that PNA had any control over the people engaging in what may have been 

anticompetitive conduct. One meeting minutes summary did reference Panasonic‘s U.S. 

operations. E.g., ECF No. 3248-17 at 3 (Chunghwa notes reporting that ―U.S. (AMEC) will add 

one production line of 17‘ CDT at beginning of ‘98‖). But that isolated mention of PNA is 

 

6 Given this finding, the Court does not address Plaintiffs‘ alternative argument that Panasonic 

Corp. participated in the conspiracy through the acts of MT Picture Display Co. Ltd (―MTPD‖). 

ECF No. 3248-4. The Court assumes this argument related only to Panasonic Corp., as Plaintiffs 

make no effort to connect MTPD to PNA.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 10 of 12
11

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

insufficient to create a dispute of material fact as to PNA‘s participation in the CRT conspiracy. 

C. Defendants’ Economic Evidence

In addition to responding to Plaintiffs‘ evidence of group and bilateral meeting attendance, 

Defendants offer economic evidence that they say shows their ―interests were not aligned with the 

alleged twelve-year cartel and their alleged participation thus made no economic sense.‖ ECF No. 

2998-4 at 26. Defendants claim 1) their CRT prices were lower than the alleged CRT target 

prices, 2) the cartel fixed prices for tube sizes that Defendants did not sell in the United States, 3) 

Defendants were small players in the CRT industry and unimportant to the conspiracy, and 4) 

Defendants‘ capacity changes during the conspiracy were consistent with Sony‘s, which is not 

alleged to be a conspirator. Id. 

None of these economic arguments require the Court to enter summary judgment in 

Defendants‘ favor. First, several of these claims rest on disputed facts. For example, Plaintiffs 

argue that Defendants‘ expert analysis comparing Defendants‘ CRT prices to their competitors‘ is 

flawed. ECF No. 3248 at 28. They also dispute any comparison with Sony, arguing that Sony 

focused on ―high-end, high-quality niches.‖ Id. at 30. Second, even if Defendants‘ economic 

claims were true, they do not necessarily require a finding that Defendants did not participate in 

the conspiracy. Small players can still take part in a larger conspiracy. ECF No. 3248-4 at 29. 

The fact that prices are fixed for certain types of tubes can affect the prices of tubes for which 

there appears to be no price agreement. Id. Moreover, even if Defendants are not liable for 

MTPD‘s alleged conspiratorial conduct, the formation of that entity does provide a reason why 

Defendants would have participated in the conspiracy, despite ending their own CRT business in 

by 2003. Id. at 30. In sum, Defendants‘ economic evidence does not alter the Court‘s conclusion.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 11 of 12
12

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

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the motion for summary judgment as to PNA, and denies it as to 

Panasonic Corp.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2017

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5119 Filed 02/27/17 Page 12 of 12