T he H onor abl e A r t hurL . A l ar cón, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for * t he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3013
T O L E D O M A C K S A L E S & S E R V IC E , IN C ., A ppel l ant v . M ACK TRUCKS , I NC.

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2: 02- cv- 04373) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R onal d L . B uckw al t er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2010 B E F O R E : S C IR IC A , A M B R O and A L A R C Ó N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2010)

OP I NI ON A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udge2

T ol edo M ack Sal es & Ser vi ce, I nc. ( “Tol edo M ack” ) has appea l ed fr om the j ud gm ent ent ered againsti taft er a tri al byj uryi n the act i on i tfi l ed ag ai nstM ack T rucks, I nc. ( “M ack Trucks ”) forcons pi r i ng t o r es t r ai n t r ade unr eas onabl yi n vi ol at i on of § 1 of t he A nti t rustA ct(“Sherm an A ct ”). T oledo M ack co ntends that this C ou rtshou l d reverse th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in c e rta in
rul i ngs r egar di ng t he admi s s i on of evi dence , and i terr ed i n i t s i ns t ruct i on t o t he j uryon t he type of e vi dence t hata j ur ycan c ons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hethera def endanthas
cons pi r ed t o vi ol at e the Sherm an A ct . W e w i l l aff i r m beca us e w e conc l ude thatthe D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n it s evi den t i aryrul i ng s or i n it s conspir acyi nst ruct i on s. I A T ol edo M ack f

i l ed thi s act i on on J ul y7, 2002. I tcl ai m ed thatM ack Trucks il lega ll yco n sp ir ed to restri ct T o ledo M ac k ’s co m p eti ti o n w ith o ther M ac k T ruc k s d ea lers i n vi ol at i on of § 1 of the Sherm an A ctand comm i t t ed pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of th e R o b in so n -P a tm a n A c t. T o led o M a c k a lso f iled sta te la w c laim s p u rsu a n t to th e O h io M ot orV ehi cl e D eal erA ctand fort he t or t i ous i nfer ence w i t h contr act . M ack Trucks fi l ed count er cl ai m s forbr eac h of contr act , m i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s and conf i dent i al i n f o r m a t i o n , a s w e l l a s c i v i l c o n s p i r a c y. P ri o r t o tr ial , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted M ac k T ruc k s’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n T o le d o M a c k ’s R o b in s o n -P a tm a n A c t c la im .3

A tt he cl os e of the evi dence , the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed M ack Trucks ’ s m ot i on for ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w o n its c o u n te rc la im f o r m is a p p ro p ri a tio n o f

tr a d e s e c re ts . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o gr ant ed M ack Trucks ’ s m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on T ol edo M ack’ s Sher m an A ctcl ai m . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe evi dence of M ack Trucks ’ s conductbetw een 1998 a nd 2002 w as i ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e the
ex ist en ce o f a co n sp ir ac yb ec au se “ the in fe ren ce s [T o ledo M ac k ] w an ts t o d raw fa ll sh o rt of r eas onabl e ones i n an ant i t rus tcont ext . ” ( J oi ntA ppendi x 926. ) T he j uryr eturned a
ver di ctagai ns tT ol edo M ack on the r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s and i n favorof M ack T rucks on i t s coun t ercl ai m s. B T o ledo M ac k fil ed an ap p ea l from the ju d g m en t entere d ag ains t i t. T h is C o u rt
v ac ated the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of jud g m en t as a m att er o f law o n T o ledo M ac k ’s S h e rm a n A c t c la im a n d re m a n d e d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . Tol edo M ack Sales & Se r v. v. Mack T rucks ( Tol edo M

ack I ), 5 3 0 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 2 9 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). It co n c lu d e d th a t in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r T o led o M a c k p re se n ted su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

a c o n sp ira c yto vi ol at e § 1 of the Sherm an A ct , t hi s C our ti s r equi r ed t o “expos e the evi dence t o t he strongestl i gh t[m ost ] favorabl e t o the partyagainstw ho m the m oti on [fo r j ud gm ent as a m a tter o f law ] is m a d e a n d g iv e [ th a t p a rty ] th e a d v a n tag e o f e v e ryf a ir a n d re a so n a b le i nfer ence . ” I

d. at218. T hi s C our tconcl uded thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed byT ol edo M ack
w a s s u f f ic ie n t to p la c e th e q u e s tio n o f th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

e v id e n c e b e f

o re th e ju ry. I

d. at4

220. T hi s C our tnot ed that“[t ] he pos s i bi l i t ythata j urym i ghtnotbel i eve the di r ect evi dence does not , i n i t s el f, m ean the j urys houl d notcons i deri t . ” Id
. It a lso a f f irm e d (i) t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s gr ant i ng M ack Trucks ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton T o ledo M ac k ’s R o b inso n -P atm an A ct claim an d (i i) M ac k T ruc k s’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw on i t s coun t er cl ai m for m i sapprop ri at i on of tr ade secret s. C B efore t ri al , T oledo M ack f i l ed thr ee separat e m oti on s i n l i m i ne t o excl ude
e v id e n c e th a t (1 ) th e d e ter io ra tio n o f T o led o M a c k ’s s a les w a s c a u se d b yth e f a c t th a t it
w as embroi l ed i n s ever al l aw s ui t s , ( 2) J eff Savage, T ol edo M ack’ s t op s al es m an, had been c onvi ct ed of r ece i vi ng s t ol en aut o par t s , and ( 3) the fa ctthatT ol edo M ack w as t erm i nat ed as a M ack Trucks ’ s deal erform i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s . T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtden i ed T oledo M ack’s m oti on s i n l i m i ne w ith o u t ex p re ss lyin d ica tin g w h e th e r it had bal ance d t he pr obat i ve val ue of thi s evi dence agai ns ti t s pot ent i al pr ej udi ci al eff ecton th e ju ry’s d e lib e ra tio n . T h e juryreturn ed a v erd ictin f av o r of M ac k T ruc k s o n ea ch o f T o ledo M ac k ’s cl ai m s. T oledo M ack f i l ed a ti m el yno t i ce of

app eal from the judgm ent r end ered against it . T o ledo M ac k ’s co n tention s o n ap p ea l are li m it ed to a c h all en g e to th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s
ru lin g s o n th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f e v id e n c e , an d w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its i ns t ruct i on on di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on overthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal j udgm entpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291.5 II A In th is a p p e a l, T o led o M a c k c o n ten d s th a t “[ t]h e D istric t C o u rt E rro n e o u sly A dm i tt ed I r r el evantand U nfai r l yPr ej udi ci al E vi dence R egar di ng the Fi r s tT r i al , [Tol edo] M a c k ’s P re v io u s ly L itig a te d C o u n te rc la im s a n d T o le d o ’s T e rm in a tio n P ro c e e d in g .” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O peni ng B r . 40. ) T ol edo M ack f i r s tas s ert s thatthi s evi dence w as not
r el evantbeca us e i tdi d nothave “ anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac tthati s of
c o n se q u e n c e to th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e a c tio n m o re p ro b a b le o r le ss p ro b a b le th a n it
w oul d be w i t houtt he evi dence . ” (Id
. a t 4 1 .) R ule 401 o f t he F ederal R ules of E vidence d efi nes “rel evan tevidence” as fo l l ow s:

“‘ R el evantevi dence ’ m eans evi dence havi ng anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of any factt hat i s of co nsequ ence to t he d et erm i nati on of the act i on m ore probab l e or l ess pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i t houtt he evi dence . ” R ul e 402 of the Feder al R ul es of E vi dence pr ovi des t hat“[a ] l l r el evantevi dence i s admi s s i bl e; ” how ever , “[e ] vi dence
w hi ch i s notr el evanti s notadmi s s i bl e. ” A tr i al cour t ’ s “rul i ngs t o admi torexcl ude
e v id e n c e a re re v iew e d f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n if

th e ya re b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . ” R enda v. K i ng , 347 F. 3d 550, 553 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In i t s r espon se t o T oledo M ack’s m oti on s i n l i m i ne , M ack Trucks ar gued thatt he chal l enged e vi dence w as r el evantt o count erT ol edo M ack’ s cl ai m thati t s decl i ne i n s al es6

w a s c a u s e d b yth e a lle g e d c o n s p ir a c yto re s tr ic t s a le s o u t o f a d e a le r’ s g e o g ra p h ic a re a . M a c k T ru c k s c o n ten d e d th a t ev id e n c e th a t D a v id Y e a g e r w a s p re o c c u p ied in th e e a rly 1990s w i t h m ul t i pl e l aw s ui t s agai ns tr efus e- haul i ng compani es , ata t i m e w hen Tol edo M a c k ’ s s a l e s t o o k a d e c i s i v e d r o p , wa s d u e i n p a r tt o th e f a c tth a t“ Ye a g e rh a d b e c o me o b se ss e d a n d d istra u g h t o v e r th e se leg a l w ra n g lin g s, a n d a s a re su lt w a s n o t ab le to
m a n a g e h is d e a ler sh ip e f f e c tiv e ly .” (J o in t A p p e n d ix 6 9 3 , M a c k T ru c k s’s R e sp o n se to T o le d o M a c k ’s T h re e M o tio n s in L im in e .) M ack Trucks al s o m ai nt ai ned thatevi dence thatT ol edo M ack’ s t op s al es m an, J eff Savage, w as arr es t ed forr ece i vi ng s t ol en pr oper t yw as r el evantt o demonstr at e that T ol edo M ack’ s dow ntur n i n s al es w as caus ed bythe publ i ci t yabouthi s al l eged c r i m i nal
a c tiv ity . M a c k T ru c k s a ss e rte d f u rth e r th a t th e e v id e n c e th a t T o led o M a c k ’s d e a ler sh ip
w as term inated fo r m isap p rop ri ati o n o f trad e se cre ts w as re leva n t t o reb u t T o ledo M ac k ’s cont ent i on t hati t s t erm i nat i on w as i n r et al i at i on fori t s s al es pr act i ces . I n addi t i on, M ack T rucks ar gued thatevi dence t hatt he Y eage r s di s avow ed anyknow l edge thatper s ons empl oy ed byT ol edo M ack c ons pi r ed t o m i s appr opr i at e M ack Trucks ’ s tr ade s ecr et s w as admi s s i bl e t o s uppor ti t s defe ns e that“the Y eage r s r out i nel yand form anyy ear s negl ect ed th e m a n a g e m e n t o f

T o le d o [ M a c k ].” In i t s orderden y i ng T oledo M ack’s m oti on s i n l i m i ne to ex clud e M ac k T ruc k s’s pr opos ed evi dence , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts i m pl ys t at ed thati tcons i der ed “Tol edo M ack Sal es & Ser vi ce, I nc. ’ s M ot i on i n L i m i ne t o E xcl ude Evi dence of Pr i orL i t i gat i on, C r i m i nal7

C onvi ct i on, Fi r s tT r i al , C ount er cl ai m s and D eal erT erm i nat i on Pr ocee di ngs and M ack T rucks , I nc. ’ s O ppos i t i on t her et o. ” I tdi d notexpr es s l ys t at e thati thad bal ance d t he p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f

th e e v id e n c e p ro f

f e re d b yM a c k T ru c k s a g a in st its p re ju d icia l ef

f e c t. “[ C ]ou rt s o f [ A ]pp ea ls aff o rd b roa d d iscreti o n to a d istri ct co u rt ’s ev iden ti ary rul i ngs . ” Spr i nt

/U ni t ed M gm t . C o. v. Mendel

s ohn , 552 U . S. 379, 384 ( 2008) . “A di s tr i ct cour ti s acc or ded a w i de di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng the admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence undert he Feder al R ul es . A s s es s i ng t he pr obat i ve val ue of [ t he pr offe r ed evi dence ] , and w ei ghi ng anyfac t or s couns el i ng agai ns tadmi s s i bi l i t y , i s a mat t erfi r s tforthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ound j udgm entunderR ul es 401 and 403 and ul t i m at el y , i f the evi dence i s admi t t ed, forthe tr i er of fa ct . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. A bel , 4 6 9 U . S . 4 5 , 5 4 (19 8 4 ). W e ar e per s uaded thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r ej ect i ng T ol edo M ack’ s cont ent i on t hatM ack Trucks ’ s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of the ca us es of T ol edo M ack’ s decl i ni ng s al es w as notr el evant . M ack Trucks ’ s pr offe r ed evi dence had a t endenc yt o demonstr at e thati tw as pr obabl e thatT ol edo M ack’ s l os s of s al es w as caus ed bypoorm anage m entr atherthan M ack Trucks ’ s al l eged vi ol at i on of § 1 of the S h e rm a n A c t. B T ol edo M ack a l s o ar gues t hat“[e ] ven i f M ack [ T rucks ] s om ehow had demonstr at ed thatt he mat t er s r ai s ed i n i t s count er cl ai m s and the dea l ert erm i nat i on pr ocee di ng had s om e mi ni m al r el evanc e, the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have e xcl uded that8

evi dence beca us e i t s pr obat i ve val ue w as s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed bythe unfa i rpr ej udi ce th a t it c re a te d f

o r T o le d o [ M a c k ].” (A p p e lla n t’ s O p e n in g B r. 4 2 .) In each o f i t s m oti on s i n l i m i ne , T ol edo M ack e xpr es s l yr eques t ed thatthe
c h a lle n g e d e v id e n c e b e e x c lu d e d p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 0 3 o f th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e . R u le 4 0 3 p ro v id e s a s f

o llo w s: “ [ a ]lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed bythe dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ur y , orbycons i der at i ons of undue de l ay , w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence . ” Tol edo M ack c orr ect l ynot es thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpr es s l ybal ance the pr obat i ve val ue of r el evantevi dence that
r ebut t ed Tol edo M ack’ s cl ai m t hati t s s al es l os s es w er e ca us ed byM ack Trucks ’ s conduct agai ns tt he pot ent i al forunfai rpr ej udi ce t o T ol edo M ack. I n U n itedS ta tes v . E u

fra sio , 93 5 F . 2d 55 3 (3d C i r. 19 91 ), the d i stri ctcou rtal so f a ile d to a rt ic u la te a R u le 4 0 3 a n a lysis . Id
. at573. T hi s C our ts t at ed, “[w ] e enc our age t ri al cou rt s t o m ake thei r R ule 403 b al ancing ex pli ci tw hen ever po ssi ble: exp res s r eas oni ng al w ay s hel ps appel l at e r evi ew . ” I d. N evert hel es s , thi s C our taff i r m ed the tr i al
cour t ’ s deci s i on t o admi tt he uncha r ged- cr i m es evi dence “eve n t hough the courtdi d not expr es s l yar t i cul at e i t s R ul e 403 ana l y s i s . ” I d. T hi s C our tas s um ed i n E u fra sio thatbydeny i ng the mot i on i n l i m i ne , the di s t r i ct cour t“i m pl i ci t l ys t ruck a Rul e 403 bal ance w hen i tadmi t t ed the uncha r ged M afi a cr i m es evi dence . ” I

d. at572. T hi s C our thel d t hat , w her e a pa r t yobj ect s t o t he admi s s i on of9

e v id e n c e p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 0 3 , w e mustconfr ontt he tr i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o art i cul at e i t s bal ance betw een the probati ve v al ue an d the prej ud i ci al effect of t he ev i den ce i n o ne o f t w o w ay s: e i t h e rwe d e c i d e t h e t r i a l c o u r ti mp l i c i t l yp e r f o r me d th e r e q u i r e d b a l a n c e ; o r , i f we deci de the tr i al cour tdi d not , w e undert ake t o per form the bal ance our s el f. I d. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . L e b o v itz , 6 6 9 F . 2 d 8 9 4 , 9 0 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). M or e r ece nt l y , t hi s C our thel d as fol l ow s i n B eckerv. A r co C hem
. C o. , 207 F. 3d 1 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ): W her e, how ever , t he di s t r i ctcour tfai l s t o expl ai n i t s gr ounds fordeny i ng a R ul e 403 obj ect i on and i t s r eas ons fordoi ng s o ar e notot herw i s e appa r ent f ro m th e re c o rd , th e re is n o w a yto re v ie w its d is c re tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi m elw r ight , 42 F . 3d 77 7, 78 1 (3d C i r. 19 94 ). In tho se ci rcum st ances, w e n e e d n o t d e f

e r to th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g , an d w e m a yu n d e rta k e to exam i ne the r ecord an d p erform the requ i red bal ancing o ursel ves. I d. at181. I n vi ew of the fa ctt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl ai n i t s r eas ons fordeny i ng T ol edo M ack’ s R ul e 403 obj ect i ons t o M ack Trucks ’ s pr offe r ed evi dence , w e w i l l not defe rt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. I ns t ead, w e have el ect ed t o exami ne the r ecor d and p e rf o rm th e re q u ire d b a lan c in g o u rse lv e s, p u rsu a n t to th e law o f th is C irc u it as se t f

o rth in B ecker . A s di s cus s ed above , evi dence thatthe ca us e of Tol edo M ack’ s l os s of s al es w as th e Y e a g e rs’ s p re o c c u p a tio n w ith m u lti p le u n re late d law su its, d a m a g in g p u b licity
r es ul t i ng fr om t he convi ct i on of Tol edo M ack’ s t op s al es m an forr ece i vi ng s t ol en p ro p e rty , an d th e ter m in a tio n o f T o led o M a c k a s a M a c k T ru c k d e a ler b e c a u se it10

m i s appr opr i at ed tr ade s ecr et s , w as r el evantt o demonstr at e thatM ack Trucks w as not
r es pons i bl e forT ol edo M ack’ s fi nanci al pl i ght , and thati t s deal er s hi p w i t h M ack Trucks
w a s n o t te rm in a te d in re ta lia tio n f o r T o le d o M a c k ’s s a le s p ra c tic e s . T ol edo M ack’ s cl ai m t hatM ack Trucks vi ol at ed § 1 of the Sherm an A ctw as bas ed
o n its c laim th a t M a c k T ru c k s e n ter e d in to a n a g re e m e n t w ith so m e o f its d e a ler s n o t to compet e w i t h eac h ot herbyoffe r i ng l ow ers al es pr i ces . M ack Trucks ’ s defe ns e w as t hat i tdi d notcons pi r e t o vi ol at e the Sherm an A ctand thatanybus i nes s l os s es s uffe r ed by T ol edo M ack r es ul t ed fr om m i s m anage m entand bad publ i ci t y . T hus , the di s pos i t i ve i s s ue fort he j ur yw as w hetherM ack Trucks w as r es pons i bl e forthe l os s of Tol edo M ack’ s s al es . T he evi dence t hatM ack Trucks pr offe r ed r egar di ng the ca us e of Tol edo M ack’ s s al es l os s es w as cr i t i cal t o i t s defe ns e thati tw as notl i abl e t o payT ol edo M ack anydamages beca us e i t s bus i nes s w ounds w er e s el f- i nfl i ct ed. A ccor di ngl y , M ack T rucks ’ s evi dence had gr eatpr obat i ve val ue thatw as es s ent i al t o i t s defe ns e and w as not su b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h e d b yth e d a n g e r o f u n f a ir p re ju d ice to T o led o M a c k . In f a c t, ex clus ion o f th is r elev an t evid en ce w o u ld h av e b ee n p rejud ici al t o M ac k T ruc k s’s defe nse. T herefore, w e con cl ud e t hat the d enial of T oledo M ack’s m oti on s i n l i m i ne d id notvi ol at e R ul e 403. III M ack Trucks fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude evi dence of fi ft een de pos i t i ons tak e n in th e R D K A c tio n . It arg u e d th a t th e d e p o sitio n s w e re tak e n a f ter th e f irst tria l in11

t hi s m at t eri n an unr el at ed ac t i on t hatal l egedl yt ook pl ace four t een y ear s aft erthe
cons pi r acyal l eged a gai ns tT ol edo M ack. M ack Trucks as s ert ed i n i t s m ot i on thatthe depos i t i ons t aken i n t he R D K act i on w er e i r r el evantand i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 403. T ol edo M ack a r gues t hatM ack Trucks “neve rr ai s ed R ul e 403 w hen i tm oved in l i m i ne t o pr ecl ude depos i t i on t es t i m onyfr om the R D K A ct i on and has ther efor e w ai ved t hi s ar gum enton appea l . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . 27. ) W e di s agr ee. I n i t s m ot i on in l i m i ne M ack Trucks expr es s l ycont ended thatthe depos i t i on t es t i m ony“mustbe exc l uded beca us e M ack [ T rucks ] di d nothave the mot i ve and opportuni t yt o exami ne the w i t nes s es fr om t he R D K A ct i on on i s s ues r el evantt o t hi s cas e. T he i ntr oduct i on of thi s vol um i nous evi dence w i l l undoubt edl yconfus e the j uryand w as t e t i m e. ” R ul e 403 pr ovi des that
r el evantevi dence m aybe exc l uded i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed by t he dange rof “ conf

us i on of the is s ues , orm i s l eadi ng the j ury , orbycons i der at i ons of
u n d u e d e la y , wa s t e o

f t i me , o r n e e d les s p re se n tatio n o f c u m u lativ e e v id e n c e .” (e m p h a sis
a d d e d .) I n i t s r es pons e t o M ack Trucks ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne , T ol edo M ack a r gued thatthe depos i t i ons w er e admi s s i bl e bec aus e “a l l buttw o of the w i t nes s es T ol edo [M ack] s ought t o i nt r oduce w er e i ndi s put abl y‘ unavai l abl e’ beca us e theyr es i de out s i de the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s s ubpoena pow er . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O peni ng B r . 56- 57. ) T ol edo M ack a l s o as s ert ed t hatt he depos i t i ons w er e admi s s i bl e bec aus e “M ack [ T rucks ] i s a def endanti n bot h cas es and w as r epr es ent ed byt he s ame l aw y er s ateverydepos i t i on thatT ol edo [M ack] s ought12

t o i nt r oduce. ” (I

d. at57- 58. ) M ack Trucks m ai nt ai ns thatthe depos i t i on t es t i m onyw as notr el evantand admi s s i bl e bec aus e i tdi d nothave the mot i ve t o devel op the t es t i m onyof t he w i t nes s es i n t he R D K A ct i on r egar di ng thi s unr el at ed mat t er . ( A ppel l ee’ s O peni ng B r. 5 1 . ) T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t exp lai n the b asis fo r i ts de cisi o n to d en yT o ledo M ac k ’s
m ot i on i n l i m i ne , n o r d id it ex p re ss lyb a lan c e th e im p a c t o f th e e v id e n c e p u rsu a n t to R u le 403. W e have i ndepende nt l yexami ned the r ecor d pur s uantt o B ecker . W e ar e per s uaded t hati nt r oduct i on of evi dence of the unr el at ed R D K act i on w oul d have c aus ed undue de l ay i n t he pr es ent at i on of evi dence , confus ed the i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t hi s act i on, and w as t ed the tim e o f th e tri al co u rtan d the ju ry . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pl i ci t l ydeny i ng T ol edo M ack’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne . IV A tt r i al , T ol edo M ack obj ect ed t o t he i ntr oduct i on of fi ft een l ett er s fr om M ack T rucks ’ s deal er s oppos i ng M ack Trucks ’ s 1989 pol i cyof r es t r i ct i ng s al es out s i de a d e a ler ’s te rrito ryo n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e yc o n tain e d h e a rsa y . “‘H e a rsa y ’ is a sta tem e n t, o th e r th a n o n e m a d e b yth e d e c lar a n t w h ile te stif y in g a t th e trial o r h e a rin g , o f f e re d in
ev iden ce to p rov e the tru th o f th e m att er a sserted . ” F ed . R . E v id. 80 1 (c). M ack Trucks ar gued t o t he j ur ythatthe l ett er s s houl d be cons i der ed as demonstr at i ng t hats om e of M ack Trucks ’ s deal er s oppos ed M ack Trucks ’ s 1989 pol i cy o f lim itin g s a le s a s s is ta n c e . T h e le tte rs w e re p re s e n te d to M a c k T ru c k s a t a m e e tin g .13

T w o w eeks l at er , t he pol i cyr egar di ng t he deni al of s al es as s i s t ance out s i de a M ack T ru c k s d e a le r’ s a s s ig n e d a re a w a s re s c in d e d . “I f the s i gni fi canc e of the off er ed s t at ementl i es s ol el yi n t he fa ctthati tw as m ade, no i s s ue i s r ai s ed as t o t he trut h of anyt hi ng as s ert ed and the s t at ementi s nothear s ay . ” Ku li ck v. P o co n o D o w n s R a cing A ss’n , 8 1 6 F . 2 d 8 9 5 , 8 9 7 n . 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). T h e lett ers w er e admi s s i bl e t o pr ove thatcompl ai nt s had bee n m ade a boutM ack Trucks ’ s pol i cy , not f o r th e tru th o f

th e m a tter a ss e rte d . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on i n ad m i t t i ng t he lett ers . V T ol edo M ack c ont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons i m pr oper l yl i m i t ed the evi dence t hatt he j ur ycoul d cons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe evi dence i tpr es ent ed demonstr at ed thatM ack Truck enga ged i n an i l l egal cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of § 1 of the S h e rm a n A c t. T o led o M a c k a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d a s a m a tter o f law in i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yt o l i m i ti t s cons i der at i on of the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of a
co n sp ir ac yp rese n ted b yT o ledo M ac k . T o ledo M ac k arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s
cons pi r acyi ns t ruct i on vi ol at ed thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Tol edo M ack I that“Tol edo [M ack] had present ed [su ffi ci ent] dir ectevidence o f a co nspir acybetw een M ack [ T rucks]
a n d its d e a le rs .” (A p p e lla n t’ s O p e n in g B r. 3 2 .) “U nl es s a tr i al j udge mi s s t at es the l aw , the j udge’ s rul i ngs on poi nt s forchar ge m aybe r ever s ed onl yi f the j udge comm i t t ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. ” B haya v14

W es t i nghous e El ec. C or

p. , 922 F. 2d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . W e mustdet erm i ne, t her efor e, i f the tr i al j udge mi s s t at ed the l aw i n i t s cons pi r acyi ns t ruct i on. T he D i stri ctC ou rti nst ruct ed the j uryas fol l ow s: A c o n sp ira c yis a k in d o f p a rtn e rsh ip in w h ich e a c h p e rso n th a t is f o u n d to be a mem berof the cons pi r acyi s l i abl e foral l act s and s t at ement s of the ot herm ember s m ade dur i ng t he exi s t ence of and i n fur t her ance of the cons pi r acy . T o cr eat e s uch a r el at i ons hi p, tw o orm or e per s ons m us tent er i nt o an agr eementt hatt heyw i l l actt ogetherfors om e unl aw ful purpos e or t o ach i eve a law ful purpose byun l aw ful m eans. T o es t abl i s h t he exi s t ence of a c ons pi r acy , how ever , the evi dence need not s how t hatt he mem ber s of the cons pi r acyent er ed i nt o anyexpr es s ed, form al orw r i t t en agr eement , t hatt heym ett ogetherorthattheydi r ect l ys t at ed w hat t hei robj ectorpurpos e w as , orthe det ai l s of i torthe means byw hi ch they w oul d acc om pl i s h t hei rpurpos e. T he agr eementi t s el f m ayhave be en ent i r el yuns poken. W hatt he evi dence m us ts how t o pr ove a c ons pi r acy e x iste d is th a t th e a lleg e d m e m b e rs o f th e c o n sp ira c yin so m e w a yc a m e to an agr eementt o acc om pl i s h a comm on purpos e. I ti s the agr eementt o act t o g e t h e rt h a tc o n s t i tu t e s c o n s p i r a c y. N o w , a c o n sp ira c ym a yb e f o rm e d w ith o u t all th e p a rties c o m in g to agr eementatt he s ame t i m e. T he unl aw ful agr eementm aybe s how n i f the proof est abli shes that the p art i es kno w i ng l yw orked togethert o acco m pli sh a comm on purpos e, i ti s notes s ent i al thatal l per s ons act ed exa ct l yal i ke, nori s i tnece s s aryt hatt heyal l pos s es s ed the s ame m ot i ve forent er i ng the a g re e m e n t. N o w , d i r e c tp r o o f

o f a c o n s p i r a c y m a y n o tb e a v a i l a b l e . A c o n s p i r a c y m a y, h o w e v e r, b e d is c lo s e d b yth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o r b yth e a c ts o f th e m e m b e rs . T her efor e, y ou m ayi nfert he exi s t ence of an a gr eementfr om thos e ac t i ons y ou fi nd t hatt he al l eged mem ber s actual l yunder t ook, as w el l as fr om the w or ds t heyus ed. N ow , m er e s i m i l ar i t yof conduc tamong var i ous per s ons , how ever , orthe fac tt hattheym ayhave a s s oci at ed w i t h one another , and mayhave metor as s embl ed t ogetherand di s cus s ed comm on ai m s and i nt er es t s , does not es t abl i s h t he exi s t ence of cons pi r acyunl es s i tt ends t o excl ude the15

pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he per s ons w er e ac t i ng i ndepende nt l y . I f theyact ed s i m i l ar l ybuti ndepende nt l yof one a not herw i t houtanyagr eementamong t h e m , t h e n t h e r e w o u l d b e n o c o n s p i r a c y. T he onus i s nott haty ou have t o s how thatal l of the means orm ethods a lleg e d lye m p lo y e d b yth e m e m b e rs o f th e c o n sp ira c yw e re a g re e d u p o n to ca rryo u t th e a ll eg ed co n sp ir ac y ; no r th at all the m ea n s o r m etho d s tha t w ere agr eed upon w er e ac tual l yus ed orputi nt o oper at i on; northatal l per s ons al l eged t o b e m em bers of t he co nspir acyactuall yw ere m em bers. W h at th e e v iden ce m u st sho w is th at th e a ll eg ed co n sp ir ac yo f tw o o r m o re per s ons exi s t ed, t hatone orm or e of the means orm ethods al l eged w as us ed to ca rryo u t his pu rpo se a n d that M ac k T ruc k s an d so m e o f it s d ea lers k n o w i n g l y b e c a m e m e m b e r s o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. F i nall y , i n d et erm i ning w hetheran ag reem ent has been p roved, y ou m ust v iew th e e v id e n c e a s a w h o le a n d n o t p iec e m e a l. Y o u sh o u ld c o n sid e r a ll t he evi dence offe r ed byT ol edo [M ack] and M ack Trucks t o det erm i ne w hethera cons pi r acyexi s t ed and w hetherM ack [ T rucks ] j oi ned i t . For exampl e, y ou s houl d cons i derevi dence pr es ent ed attr i al fr om the 1980s and the 1990s j us tas y ou s houl d m or e r ece ntevi dence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o i ns t ruct ed the j uryon t he di ffe r ence betw een di r ect evi dence and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence : [T]he r e w er e tw o t ypes of evi dence pr es ent ed. T her e w as di r ectevi dence , w h ich is e v id e n c e o f

so m e th in g th e w itn e ss o b se rv e d f ro m th e u se o f

h is senses, som et hing he saw , heard, m aybe sm el l ed, som ething t hroug h the use o f se n se s, th a t’s d ire c t ev id e n c e . T h e o th e r typ e o f e v id e n c e is ci r cumst ant i al evi dence and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s everybi tas good as di r ectevi dence , pr ovi ded thati nfer ence y ou dr aw fr om fac t s w hi ch y ou have f ound t o be corr ecti s a r eas onabl e one. N ow , the exa m pl e thathas been given from t i m e i n m em ori al [si c] i s the rai ning-out si de ex am ple; i t ’s a good exampl e. I add a l i t t l e bi tm or e t o i ti n t hi s r es pect : Suppose the ques t i on befor e y ou now i s , has i tbeen r ai ni ng s i nce y ou came i nt o t he c o u r t r o o m th i s mo r n i n g ? I t h i n k t o d a yi twa s s u n n y , wa s n ’ ti t , wh e n we cam e i n? F or a chan ge. T he q uest i on w as, has i trai ned ? A nd supp ose w hi l e y ou w er e her e t odayy ou hear d unm i s t akabl e cl aps of thunderl i ke y e s te rd a y , ri g h t? G o d , it w a s te rr ib le . U n m is ta k a b le c la p s o f th u n d e r.16

C oul d y ou r eas onabl yi nferfr om thatthati tw as r ai ni ng? M aybe y ou coul d, i t ’ s goi ng t o be up t o y ou t o deci de w hat ’ s a r eas onabl e i nfer ence , but supp ose y ou al so saw peo ple com e i n h ere s hak i ng off um brel l as and so forth. Y ou pu tt ho se tw o toget her, then I think m ostw ou l d ag ree i t ’s a r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hati tw as r ai ni ng out s i de. T o led o M a c k c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to tailo r its i ns t ruct i ons t o t he evi dence T ol edo M ack pr es ent ed t o t he j ury . T ol edo M ack a r gues t hat beca us e i tpr es ent ed di r ectevi dence of a c ons pi r acy , the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yt hati tcoul d noti nfert he exi s t ence of a c ons pi r at or i al agr eementfr om circu m stan ti al ev iden ce “u n less ittend s to e x clud e the p o ssibil itythat the p erso n s w ere act i ng i ndepende nt l y . I f theyact ed s i m i l ar l ybuti ndepende nt l yof one a not herw i t hout
a n ya g re e m e n t a m o n g th e m , th e n th e re w o u ld b e n o c o n s p ir a c y .” T ol edo M ack a cknow l edges t hatthe Supr eme C our thel d i n M at s us hi ta E l ec. I ndus
. C o. v. Zeni th R adi o C or p. , 475 U . S. 475, 574 ( 1986) , that“conduc tas cons i s t ent
w ith p erm issi b le co m p eti ti o n as w ith il lega l con sp ir ac yd o es n o t, stan d ing alon e, sup p o rt an i nfer ence of ant i t rus tcons pi r acy . ” I d. at588. T ol edo M ack a l s o corr ect l ynot es that t hi s C our thas hel d t hat“i n di r ectevi dence cas es , the pl ai nt i ff ne ed notadduce circu m stan ti al ev iden ce ‘th at t en d s to e x clud e the p o ssibil itythat the a ll eg ed co n sp ir ators act ed i ndepende nt l y . ’ ” R os s i v. Standar d R oof i ng, I nc. , 156 F. 3d 452, 466 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng Ma tsu sh ita , 4 7 5 U . S . at 58 8 ). T ol edo M ack c ont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence w er e contr aryt o t he l aw of thi s C i r cui tas s etfor t h i n R ossibeca us e Tol edo17

M ac k p rese n ted d ir ec t evid en ce at tri al. T o ledo M ac k m aintains that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s in stru c tio n re p e a ted “ a t th e trial s tag e th e e rro r th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m a d e w h e n it g ra n ted ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law [ in Tol edo M

ack I ]. ” (A p p ell an t’ s O p en ing B r. 3 3 . ) T hi s ar gum enti gnor es t he di ffe r ence betw een the dutyof a di s tr i ctcour tt o denya mot i on fora j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i f the evi dence , vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he
nonm ovi ng par t y , i s s uffi ci entforpr es ent at i on t o a j uryt o det erm i ne i t s cr edi bi l i t yand
w ei ght , and w hethert he pl ai nt i ff’ s di r ectevi dence of an unl aw ful agr eementhas been pr oved t o t he j ur ybya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . I n Tol edo M ack I , this C o u rt s t at ed: I tm ayw el l be thatT ol edo’ s i nabi l i t yt o pr es entthe det ai l s of any agr eementamong deal er s w oul d l eave a j uryunper s uaded thats uch a g r e e me n t s d i d i n f

a c te x i s t . T h a t , h o we v e r , i s n o to u ri n q u i r y . I n s t e a d , we m us tcons i derw hethert he evi dence ent i t l es T ol edo t o pl ace thatques t i on befor e the j ur yatal l . W e bel i eve i tdoes . Si m pl yput , T ol edo’ s evi dence w a s s u f f icie n t b e c a u se a ju ryc o n sid e rin g it co u ld b e liev e it an d re a so n a b ly c o n c lu d e th a t a g re e m e n ts n o t to c o m p e te d id e x is t a m o n g M a c k d e a le rs . T h e p o ss ib ili tyth a t a ju rym ig h t n o t b e liev e th e d ire c t ev id e n c e d o e s n o t, i n itse lf , m e a n th a t th e ju rysh o u ld n o t co n sid e r it. Tol edo M

ack I , 5 3 0 F .3 d a t 2 2 0 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tful l ycompl i ed w i t h t hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Tol edo M ack I in i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yon di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . T ol edo M ack’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the ef fec tof Tol edo M

ack I o n th e s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e is s e ri o u s ly f la w e d . C ont r aryt o T ol edo M ack’ s cont ent i on i n t hi s m att er , the D i s t r i ctC our tw as notr equi r ed byt hi s C our t ’ s m andat e i n Tol edo M ack I t o i ns t ructthe j urythati tm us tacc eptT ol edoM ack’ s di r ectevi dence as s uffi ci entand cr edi bl e t o demonstr at e thatM ack Trucks

cons pi r ed t o vi ol at e § 1 of the Sherm an A ct . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterras a mat t erof l aw i n i t s i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ur yt hati thad t o deci de w hetherT ol edo M ack ha d pr es ent ed
c r e d i b l e a n d s u f

f i c i e n td i r e c te v i d e n c e o f a c o n s p i r a c y. C oncl usi on W e A FFIRM beca us e w e have concl uded thateac h of Tol edo M ack’ s chal l enges t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs does notper s uade us ot herw i s e.

1 8