Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/320786110/In-Re-Flat-Glass-Antitrust-Litigation-Mdl-No-1200-Brian-S-Nelson-D-B-A-Jamestown-Glass-Service-Mel-s-Auto-Glass-Inc-A-Waxman-Co-on-Behalf
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 09:28:26
Document Index: 276704203

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 445', '§ 804', '§ 801', 'art, 763', '§ 801']

In Re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation (Mdl No. 1200) Brian S. Nelson, D/B/A Jamestown Glass Service Mel's Auto Glass, Inc. A. Waxman & Co., on Behalf of Itself, and All Others Similarly Situated Designer Windows, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Moses Moore All Glass Aspects, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Aaa Glass, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, D/B/A the Glass Doctor the Lurie Companies, Inc. Vstb Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Perfecto Auto Glass & Upholstery and Its Successors Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc., on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Healy, Jr. County Auto Glass, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Gerard J. Clabbers, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Kirschner Corporation, Inc., T/a Berwyn Glass Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Hartung Agalite Glass Co., D/B/A Hartung Glass Indust | Price Fixing
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIn Re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation (Mdl No. 1200) Brian S. Nelson, D/B/A Jamestown Glass Service Mel's Auto Glass, Inc. A. Waxman & Co., on Behalf of Itself, and All Others Similarly Situated Designer Windows, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Moses Moore All Glass Aspects, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Aaa Glass, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, D/B/A the Glass Doctor the Lurie Companies, Inc. Vstb Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Perfecto Auto Glass & Upholstery and Its Successors Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc., on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Healy, Jr. County Auto Glass, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Gerard J. Clabbers, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Kirschner Corporation, Inc., T/a Berwyn Glass Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Hartung Agalite Glass Co., D/B/A Hartung Glass IndustUploaded by Scribd Government DocsPrice FixingGlassesCompetition LawConspiracy (Civil)Prices0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Filed: 2004-09-29
Citations: 385 F.3d 350
Docket: 03-2920View MoreFiled: 2004-09-29
Docket: 03-2920Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content385 F.3d 350
In re FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL No.
Brian S. Nelson, d/b/a Jamestown Glass Service; Mel's Auto
Glass, Inc.; A. Waxman & Co., on behalf of itself, and all others
similarly situated; Designer Windows, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; Moses Moore all Glass
Aspects, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; AAA Glass, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, d/b/a The Glass Doctor; The Lurie
Companies, Inc.; VSTB Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Perfecto Auto
Glass & Upholstery and its successors; Port City Glass &
Mirror, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; John Healy, Jr.; County Auto Glass, Inc., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Gerard J.
Clabbers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
Kirschner Corporation, Inc., t/a Berwyn Glass Company, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Hartung
Agalite Glass Co., d/b/a Hartung Glass Industries; All Star
Glass, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
Superior Windshield Installation, Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated; Jovi, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, t/a Easton Area Glass; Engineered
Glass Walls, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Bailes Glass Co.; Interstate Glass Distributors, Inc.,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Orlando
Auto TOP, Inc.; Mayflower Sales Co., Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; Cardinal IG; Reed's Body
Shop, Inc.; Beletz Brothers Glass Company, Inc.; Complast,
Inc.; Western States Glass, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Grimes Auto Glass, Inc.; D & S Glass
Services, Inc.; George Brown & Son Glass Works, Inc.;
Thermal Chek, Inc.; Mobile Glass, Inc., individually and as a
representative of a class; Jeld-Wen, Inc., an Oregon
Corporation; Jeld-Wen Canada Limited, a Canadian
corporation; Jeld-Wen Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation;
Avanti Industries, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Lakewood
City Glass, Inc.; Carolina Mirror; Allstate Insurance
Company; Allstate Indemnity Company
Pilkington PLC; Pilkington Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., Inc.; AFG
Industries, Inc.; Guardian Industries Corporation; PPG
Industries, Inc.; Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., Inc.; Asahi Glass Co.,
Ltd.; Ford Motor Co.; Pilkington Holdings; Asahi Glass
America, Inc. United States of America (Intervenor in D.C.)
(D.C. No. 97-mc-00550) Class Plaintiffs and Grimes Auto Glass,
No. 03-2920.
Pennsylvania, Donetta W. Ambrose and Donald E. Ziegler, JJ.
Samuel Issacharoff, New York, NY, Daniel E. Bacine, Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine, Philadelphia, PA, Eugene Spector, Spector Roseman & Kodroff,
Philadelphia, PA, Robert N. Kaplan, (Argued), Richard J. Kilsheimer,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, New York, NY, Michael D. Hausfeld, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, D.C., Robert Skirnick, Meredith
Cohen Greenfogel & Skirnick, New York, NY, for Appellants.
Paul M. Dodyk, (Argued), Peter T. Barbur, Lawrence E. Buterman, Kelly
A. Rocco, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY, David J.
Armstrong, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee
J. Michael Murray, (Argued), Berkman, Gordon, Murray & DeVan,
Cleveland, OH, for Appellee Edward Bryant.
Michael S. Sommer, McDermott, Will & Emery, New York, NY, Elliot
Silverman, (Argued), McDermott, Will & Emery, Irvine, CA, for
Appellee Ronald W. Skeddle.
This case addresses the recurring question of what quantity and quality of
evidence suffices to create a genuine issue of material fact as to one particular
element of a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: whether a defendant
entered into an unlawful agreement. Appellants contend that appellee PPG
Industries, Inc. ("PPG") conspired with its competitors to fix the prices of flat
glass and automotive replacement glass in the early 1990s. The District Court
granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was
insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part, affirm in part, and
A. The Flat Glass and Automotive Replacement Glass Industries
PPG manufactures sheets of glass through a method called the "float process."
Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher-density liquid, such as molten tin.
As the glass floats on top of the bath, it is polished under controlled
temperatures. Finally, the glass is fed into an "annealing oven" where it
gradually cools and hardens. See In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, 191
F.R.D. 472, 476 n. 7 (W.D.Pa.1999). The glass that PPG produces through the
float process-in various sizes, thicknesses, and tints, see Supp.App. 14 n. 16;
App. 634-is called "flat glass."
PPG and a handful of other firms-Libbey-Owens-Ford Company ("LOF," a
subsidiary of the British glass producer Pilkington LLC); AFG Industries, Inc.
("AFG," a subsidiary of the Japanese glass producer Asahi Glass Co.);1
Guardian Industries ("Guardian"); and Ford Motor Co. ("Ford") —
manufacture well over ninety percent of the flat glass sold in the United States.
In 1995, for example, PPG accounted for approximately 28% of domestic flat
glass shipments, LOF and AFG each accounted for 19%, and Guardian and
Ford each accounted for 15%. Supp.App. 20.2
Flat glass produced through the float process may be sold "as is," in which case
it is used primarily in construction. Supp.App. 16. Alternatively, many different
products may be "fabricated" from flat glass by subjecting it to a variety of
processes. A substantial amount of flat glass, for example, is fabricated for use
in automobiles. Flat glass may be molded and combined with other parts to
produce windshields, for example, or side and rear windows. Supp.App. 19.
Some products-called original equipment manufacturer products ("OEM" glass
products)-are fabricated for sale to vehicle manufacturers for use in new
vehicles. Other products-called automotive replacement glass products-are
fabricated for sale and use as automotive replacement parts. Supp.App. 25.
These are two separate markets.3
The automotive replacement glass market has a four-tier vertical structure.
First, manufacturers-the handful of firms mentioned above-produce flat glass.
Second, various companies fabricate the flat glass into different types of
automotive replacement glass products. The major United States fabricators of
automotive replacement glass products during the class period were PPG, LOF,
Ford, Guardian, Safelite, Viracon, Premier/Hordis, and Chrysler. App. 585.
Thus a number of firms, such as PPG, both manufacture flat glass and fabricate
it into automotive replacement glass products.4
Third, the fabricators sell the parts by the "truckload" to wholesale distributors.
The wholesale distributors then sell the automotive replacement glass products
in less than truckload quantities to the retail installers that sell the products
directly to car owners.
PPG operates at every level of the automotive replacement glass market; that is,
PPG is "vertically integrated." In addition to manufacturing flat glass and
fabricating automotive replacement glass products, PPG runs a wholesale
distribution operation that sells less than truckload quantities to retail installers.
Yet PPG also sells its products to its downstream competitors. It sells flat glass
to automotive replacement glass fabricators, and it sells truckload quantities of
automotive replacement glass products to wholesale distributors.
B. The Alleged Conspiracies
In 1993, LOF fired two of its executives-Ronald Skeddle (LOF's President and
Chief Executive Officer) and Edward Bryant (LOF's Executive Vice President,
the company's second-highest ranking officer) — and a grand jury indicted
them for conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. A jury
eventually acquitted them of the charges, but in the meantime Skeddle and
Bryant alleged that during the early 1990s LOF had conspired with its
competitors to fix the price of the glass products it sold. See In re Flat Glass
Antitrust Litigation, 288 F.3d 83, 86 (3d Cir.2002).
Skeddle and Bryant's allegations spurred plaintiffs to file several private
antitrust lawsuits against LOF and its competitors (PPG, AFG, Ford, and
Guardian), and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation eventually
consolidated and transferred the actions to the Western District of
Pennsylvania. After the District Court certified two subclasses of plaintiffs, see
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, 191 F.R.D. 472, 475 (W.D.Pa.1999),
plaintiffs reached settlements with all defendants except PPG.
Plaintiffs allege that PPG and its competitors conspired to "fix, raise, and
maintain" the prices of flat glass and automotive replacement glass. The two
alleged conspiracies correspond with the two subclasses that the District Court
certified. See In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, 191 F.R.D. at 475. One
subclass consists of individuals and entities that purchased flat glass or products
fabricated from flat glass from PPG, LOF, Guardian, Ford, or AFG. The other
subclass consists of individuals and entities that purchased automotive
replacement glass products from any of those same firms. Id.
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding price-fixing in the market for flat glass are
relatively straightforward. Several times during the class period, PPG and the
other flat glass producers raised their "list prices" for flat glass by the same
amount and within very close time frames. Within a twelve-day period in the
summer of 1991, for example, PPG and its competitors all raised their list
prices for flat glass by the same amounts.5 Plaintiffs simply contend that PPG
and its competitors agreed to raise their prices, rather than doing so
independently and with no concerted coordination.
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding price-fixing in the market for automotive
replacement glass are more complicated. According to plaintiffs, PPG and other
automotive replacement glass fabricators used a mechanism, called the "NAGS
Calculator," to fix prices at supra-competitive levels.
NAGS, which stands for "National Auto Glass Specifications," is a business
that produced a catalogue called the "NAGS Calculator." The NAGS
Calculator supplied an identifying number for each type of automotive
replacement glass product and provided a recommended price for an installer to
charge a car owner for the part. NAGS came up with its recommended price
for any particular automotive replacement glass product by taking a truckload
quantity price of that product and multiplying it by a number (a "multiplier")
specific to that product. Generally, NAGS would use the truckload quantity
price for the OEM glass product that the automotive replacement glass was
According to plaintiffs, PPG and other automotive replacement glass
manufacturers knew the multipliers that NAGS used to devise its recommended
prices. Thus PPG could, and plaintiffs allege did, work backwards from the
recommended price to determine the truckload price that NAGS used in its
calculation. "If the truckload price used by NAGS was different from its own
truckload price," plaintiffs argue, "PPG then adjusted its truckload price to
match the truckload price used to create the NAGS price, as did the other
[automotive replacement glass] manufacturers." Plaintiffs' Br. 33. Thus
plaintiffs contend that PPG and its competitors "had an understanding and acted
in concert" to use the NAGS Calculator to "align their truckload price lists and
stabilize pricing, and as a benchmark for pricing of [automotive replacement
glass] at less-than-truckload quantities." Plaintiffs' Br. 30.
The District Court granted PPG's motions for summary judgment on both of
plaintiffs' price-fixing claims. Before doing so, the Court circumscribed the
evidence it considered when deciding PPG's summary judgment motions
through a series of in limine motions. The Court refused to order Skeddle and
Bryant to testify despite their invocation of their Fifth Amendment privileges,
for example, and it also excluded many of Skeddle's handwritten notes that
plaintiffs argue tend to implicate PPG in a price-fixing conspiracy.
Plaintiffs appeal from the District Court's summary judgment and certain of its
evidentiary decisions. After addressing the applicable legal standards, we first
address whether summary judgment was warranted based on the evidence the
District Court considered.6 We conclude that the District Court should not have
granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' flat glass price-fixing claim, and we
address the District Court's evidentiary rulings so that the Court can further
consider what evidence a jury may consider on remand. We affirm summary
judgment on plaintiffs' automotive replacement glass conspiracy claim.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides that "every contract, combination in the
form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce ... is
declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. § 1. Despite its broad language, Section 1 only
prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that unreasonably restrain
trade. See InterVest Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 340 F.3d 144, 158 (3d Cir.2003).
Certain restraints of trade are per se unreasonable, while others require more
searching analysis under the "rule of reason." Id. at 158-59.
Restraints of trade are per se unreasonable when they are "`manifestly
anticompetitive' or `would always or almost always tend to restrict
competition.'" Rossi v. Standard Roofing, Inc., 156 F.3d 452, 461 (3d Cir.1998)
(quoting Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 108
S.Ct. 1515, 99 L.Ed.2d 808 (1988)). Because of their "pernicious effect on
competition and lack of any redeeming virtue," Northern Pac. Ry. v. United
States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, 2 L.Ed.2d 545 (1958), these restraints of
trade are "conclusively presumed to unreasonably restrain competition `without
elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm [it has] caused or the business excuse
for [its] use.'" Rossi, 156 F.3d at 461 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Here, plaintiffs allege that PPG engaged in horizontal price-fixing-i.e., "where
competitors at the same market level agree to fix or control the prices they will
charge for their respective goods or services." United States v. Brown Univ., 5
F.3d 658, 670 (3d Cir.1993). Since at least United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil
Co., 310 U.S. 150, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940), the Supreme Court has
held that such restraints of trade are per se unreasonable. "Whatever economic
justification particular price-fixing agreements may be thought to have," the
Court explained, "the law does not permit an inquiry into their reasonableness.
They are all banned because of their actual or potential threat to the central
nervous system of the economy." 310 U.S. 150, 224 n. 59, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84
L.Ed. 1129 (1940); see also Brown Univ., 5 F.3d at 670.
As a result, plaintiffs need only prove that "the defendants conspired among
each other and that this conspiracy was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's
injury." InterVest, 340 F.3d at 159. PPG does not dispute proximate causation.
Rather, it argues that it did not agree with its competitors to fix prices.
The existence of an agreement is "[t]he very essence of a section 1 claim."
Alvord-Polk, Inc. v. Schumacher & Co., 37 F.3d 996, 999 (3d Cir.1994). The
Sherman Act speaks in terms of a "contract," "combination" or "conspiracy,"
but courts have interpreted this language to require "some form of concerted
action." Id. at 999 & n. 1. In other words, there must be a "`unity of purpose or
a common design and understanding or a meeting of minds'" or "`a conscious
commitment to a common scheme.'" Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.,
465 U.S. 752, 764, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984) (quoting Edward J.
Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 637 F.2d 105, 111 (3d Cir.1980)).
When faced with whether a plaintiff has offered sufficient proof of an
agreement to preclude summary judgment, a court must generally apply the
same summary judgment standards that apply in other contexts. See InterVest,
340 F.3d at 159-60. A court shall render summary judgment when the evidence
shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c).
In making this determination, a court must "view the facts and any reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing
summary judgment." InterVest, 340 F.3d at 160. And a court "should not
tightly compartmentalize the evidence put forward by the nonmovant, but
instead should analyze it as a whole to see if it supports an inference of
concerted action." Petruzzi's IGA v. Darling-Delaware, 998 F.2d 1224, 1230
Although these normal summary judgment principles apply in antitrust cases,
an important distinction exists. As the Supreme Court held in Matsushita
Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89
L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), "antitrust law limits the range of permissible inferences
from ambiguous evidence in a § 1 case." Id. at 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348; see also
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 763-64, 104 S.Ct.
1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). In other words, certain "inferences may not be
drawn from circumstantial evidence in an antitrust case." InterVest, 340 F.3d at
160.7 This higher threshold is imposed in antitrust cases to avoid deterring
innocent conduct that reflects enhanced, rather than restrained, competition.
We explored "exactly what inferences are circumscribed in a section 1 case" in
our decision in Petruzzi's. There, we identified "two important circumstances
underlying the [Supreme] Court's decision in Matsushita": (1) "the plaintiffs'
theory of conspiracy was implausible"; and (2) "permitting an inference of
antitrust conspiracy in the circumstances `would have the effect of deterring
significant procompetitive conduct.'" 998 F.2d at 1232 (quoting In re
Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 906
F.2d 432, 439 (9th Cir.1990)) (emphasis in Petruzzi's). In other words, "the
Court stated that the acceptable inferences which can be drawn from
circumstantial evidence vary with the plausibility of the plaintiffs' theory and
the dangers associated with such inferences." Id.; see also Matsushita, 475 U.S.
at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 ("[I]f the factual context renders [the plaintiff's] claim
implausible-if the claim is one that simply makes no economic sense-[a
plaintiff] must come forward with more persuasive evidence to support [its]
claim than would otherwise be necessary.") (citations omitted).
The plaintiffs in Matsushita alleged that the defendants conspired to engage in
predatory pricing, the practice by which "a firm sets its prices temporarily
below costs, with the hope that the low price will drive a competitor out of
business, after which the `predatory' firm will raise its prices so high that it will
recoup its temporary losses and earn additional profit, all before new firms,
attracted by the high prices, enter its market and force prices down." Clamp-All
Corp., 851 F.2d at 483. Courts and commentators alike have come to regard
predatory pricing as a relatively speculative phenomenon, particularly when its
success requires collusion among multiple firms. See Brooke Group Ltd. v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 226-27, 113 S.Ct. 2578,
125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993). Inferences about predatory pricing are also inherently
weak because the behavior of firms engaged in predatory pricing would largely
mirror how firms in a competitive market act: by cutting prices. See Matsushita,
475 U.S. at 594, 106 S.Ct. 1348 ("[C]utting prices in order to increase business
often is the very essence of competition."). Thus inferring from ambiguous
evidence that firms are engaging in predatory pricing would "chill
procompetitive behavior." Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1232.
In Petruzzi's, by contrast, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to
allocate customers. "[P]laintiff's theory of conspiracy is not implausible," we
explained, rather it made "perfect economic sense." 998 F.2d at 1232. In
addition, the challenged activities could not reasonably be perceived as
procompetitive. Id. ("After all, refusing to bid on accounts hardly can be labeled
as the `very essence of competition.'") (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 594,
106 S.Ct. 1348). As a result of those circumstances, we concluded that "more
liberal inferences from the evidence should be permitted than in Matsushita
because the attendant dangers from drawing inferences recognized in
Matsushita are not present." Id.; see also InterVest, 340 F.3d at 162; AlvordPolk, Inc., 37 F.3d at 1001 ("[T]he meaning we ascribe to circumstantial
evidence will vary depending on the challenged conduct.").8
Here, like in Petruzzi's, plaintiffs' theory of conspiracy — an agreement among
oligopolists to fix prices at a supracompetitive level — makes perfect economic
sense. In addition, absent increases in marginal cost or demand, raising prices
generally does not approximate — and cannot be mistaken as — competitive
Yet despite the absence of the Matsushita Court's concerns, this Court and
others have been cautious in accepting inferences from circumstantial evidence
in cases involving allegations of horizontal price-fixing among oligopolists. See
Williamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, R.J., 346 F.3d 1287, 1300-01 (11th
Cir.2003); Blomkest Fertilizer, Inc. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, 203 F.3d
1028, 1042-43 (8th Cir.2000); In re Baby Food Antitrust Litigation, 166 F.3d
112, 121-22 (3d Cir.1999); Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute,
851 F.2d 478, 484 (1st Cir.1988); Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro, 822 F.2d 246, 25354 (2d Cir.1987); see also Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1232-33.9 The basis for this
circumspect approach is the theory of "interdependence." See Donald F.
Turner, The Definition of Agreement Under the Sherman Act: Conscious
Parallelism and Refusals to Deal, 75 Harv. L.Rev. 655, 662-63 (1962).
The theory of interdependence posits the following: In a market with many
firms, the effects of any single firm's price and output decisions "would be so
diffused among its numerous competitors that they would not be aware of any
change." Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1429, at
206 (2nd ed.2000). In a highly concentrated market (i.e., a market dominated by
few firms), however, any single firm's "price and output decisions will have a
noticeable impact on the market and on its rivals." Id. Thus when a firm in a
concentrated market (i.e., an "oligopolist") is deciding on a course of action,
"any rational decision must take into account the anticipated reaction of the
other [] firms." Id. at 207. 10
The result, according to the theory of interdependence, is that firms in a
concentrated market may maintain their prices at supracompetitive levels, or
even raise them to those levels, without engaging in any overt concerted action.
We quote the Areeda treatise at length:
The first firm in a five-firm oligopoly, Alpha, may be eager to lower its price
somewhat in order to expand its sales. However, it knows that the other four
firms would probably respond to a price cut by reducing their prices to maintain
their previous market shares. Unless Alpha believes that it can conceal its price
reduction for a time or otherwise gain a substantial advantage from being the
first to move, the price reduction would merely reduce Alpha's profits and the
profits of the other firms as well. Such "oligopolistic rationality" cannot only
forestall rivalrous price reductions, it can also provide for price increases
through, for example, price leadership. If the price had for some reason been
less than X [the price a monopolist would charge to maximize profits], firm
Beta might announce its decision to raise its price to X effective immediately,
or in several days, or next season. The other four firms may each choose to
follow Beta's lead; if they do not increase their prices to Beta's level, Beta may
be forced to reduce its price to their level. Because each of the other firms
knows this, each will consider whether it is better off when all are charging the
old price or price X. They will obviously choose X when they believe that it
will maximize industry profits.
Despite the noncompetitive nature of such conduct, which we have come to call
"conscious parallelism," we have held that the Sherman Act does not proscribe
it. See In re Baby Food, 166 F.3d at 121-22. There are two primary bases for
this approach, both embodied in a line of scholarship that started with Donald
Turner in 1962 and continued in large part in Phillip Areeda's influential
antitrust treatise. First, there exists the notion that interdependent behavior is
not an "agreement" within the term's meaning under the Sherman Act. See
Turner, supra, at 663-65; but see Posner, Antitrust Law, supra, at 94-95.
Second, Turner and Areeda argued that judicial remedies are incapable of
addressing the anticompetitive effects of consciously parallel pricing. Turner,
supra, at 669-71, Areeda, Antitrust Law, supra, ¶¶ 1432d5-1432f, at 232-36;
but see Posner, supra, at 98. Indeed, the Supreme Court has described
conscious parallelism in dicta as "the process, not in itself unlawful, by which
firms in a concentrated market might in effect share monopoly power, setting
their prices at a profit-maximizing, supracompetitive level by recognizing their
shared economic interests and their interdependence with respect to price and
output decisions." Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
509 U.S. 209, 227, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993) (emphasis added).
As a result, we have required that plaintiffs basing a claim of collusion on
inferences from consciously parallel behavior show that certain "plus factors"
also exist. See In re Baby Food, 166 F.3d at 122; Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1243. 11
Existence of these plus factors tends to ensure that courts punish "concerted
action"-an actual agreement-instead of the "unilateral, independent conduct of
competitors." In re Baby Food, 166 F.3d at 122. In other words, the factors
serve as proxies for direct evidence of an agreement.
The question then becomes, what are "plus factors" that suffice to defeat
summary judgment? There is no finite set of such criteria; no exhaustive list
exists. See Id.; Areeda, supra, ¶ 1434a, at 241-42. We have identified, however,
at least three such plus factors: (1) evidence that the defendant had a motive to
enter into a price fixing conspiracy; (2) evidence that the defendant acted
contrary to its interests; and (3) "evidence implying a traditional conspiracy."
Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1244.
In the context of parallel pricing, the first two factors largely restate the
phenomenon of interdependence. We candidly acknowledged as much in In re
Baby Food, 166 F.3d at 122. See also Areeda, supra, ¶ 1434c1, at 245
("`[C]onspiratorial motivation' and `acts against self-interest' often do no more
than restate interdependence."); Posner, supra, at 100. Evidence that the
defendant had a motive to enter into a price fixing conspiracy means evidence
that the industry is conducive to oligopolistic price fixing, either
interdependently or through a more express form of collusion. In other words, it
is "evidence that the structure of the market was such as to make secret price
fixing feasible." In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 295 F.3d
651, 655 (7th Cir.2002). Evidence that the defendant acted contrary to its
interests means evidence of conduct that would be irrational assuming that the
defendant operated in a competitive market. In a competitive industry, for
example, a firm would cut its price with the hope of increasing its market share
if its competitors were setting prices above marginal costs. Put differently, in
analyzing this factor a court looks to "evidence that the market behaved in a
noncompetitive manner." Id.
These two plus factors are important to a court's analysis, because their
existence tends to eliminate the possibility of mistaking the workings of a
competitive market — where firms might increase price when, for example,
demand increases — with interdependent, supracompetitive pricing. But since
these factors often restate interdependence (at least in the context of an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy), they may not suffice — by themselves — to defeat
summary judgment on a claim of horizontal price-fixing among oligopolists.12
The most important evidence will generally be non-economic evidence "that
there was an actual, manifest agreement not to compete." Id. at 661. That
evidence may involve "customary indications of traditional conspiracy," or
"proof that the defendants got together and exchanged assurances of common
action or otherwise adopted a common plan even though no meetings,
conversations, or exchanged documents are shown." Areeda, supra, ¶ 1434b, at
243; see also Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1244.
We turn to whether plaintiffs here have adduced sufficient evidence of plus
factors to preclude summary judgment on their two separate antitrust claims.
A. Flat Glass
We first note that plaintiffs have offered substantial evidence tending to show
that PPG had a motive to enter into a price fixing conspiracy because conditions
existed in the flat glass industry that were conducive to collusion. As we have
described, the flat glass market is concentrated; there are a handful of sellers
and there is no "fringe market" of smaller firms. Flat glass is sold primarily on
the basis of price, and although it may vary in tint or thickness it is generally a
standardized product. Importantly, the demand for flat glass was in decline
during the start of the 1990s and PPG and its competitors had excess capacity.
Normally, reduced demand and excess supply are economic conditions that
favor price cuts, rather than price increases. There are also high fixed costs in
the industry. See App. 635. Suffice it to say, the flat glass industry is in many
respects a text book example of an industry susceptible to efforts to maintain
supracompetitive prices. See generally Richard A. Posner, Antitrust Law 69-79
(2d ed.2001). PPG concedes as much. See Tr. of Oral Argument 21-22.
Similarly, there is evidence in the record indicating that the price increases
PPG and its competitors implemented were inconsistent with competition in the
industry. In other words, there is evidence of anti-competitive behavior and that
PPG acted "contrary to its interests." The entry of Cardinal into the market, for
example, tends to indicate that flat glass producers were charging
supracompetitive prices. See Posner, supra, at 89 ("The charging of a monopoly
price will attract new competitors to a market who perceive opportunities for
unusual profits by reason of the abnormally high price."). More important, no
evidence suggests that the increase in list prices was correlated with any
changes in costs or demand. Indeed, in July of 1992 a PPG executive noted that
"[n]o one ... believes that demand will be robust enough to support a price
increase without significant discipline on the part of all float producers." App.
5841. After the flat glass producers implemented a price increase in September
of 1992, the same executive noted that "[b]asic supply and demand do not
support this [1992] increase." App. 5908.
All the above indicates that the price increases were collusive, but not whether
the collusion was merely interdependent or the result of an actual agreement.
We therefore consider whether sufficient "traditional" conspiracy evidence
exists from which a reasonably jury could infer that an agreement existed.
Plaintiffs argue that evidence that PPG's competitors entered into an agreementat least amongst themselves — tends to show that PPG too entered the same
agreement. They also argue that other circumstantial evidence shows — or at
least a finder of fact could infer — that PPG agreed to raise the price of flat
glass three specific times: June-July of 1991, September-October of 1992, and
May-June of 1993.
As a preliminary matter, however, we address an argument that pervades PPG's
briefs, both before us and before the District Court. PPG contends that
regardless of the flat glass producers' list prices, the actual transactional pricesthat is, the prices at which flat glass producers actually sold their product to
customers-declined during the period of the alleged conspiracy. Insofar as PPG
argues that plaintiffs cannot establish liability as a matter of law for that reason,
it is simply wrong.13 "An agreement to fix prices is ... a per se violation of the
Sherman Act even if most or for that matter all transactions occurred at lower
prices." In re High Fructose Corn Syrup, 295 F.3d at 656.
PPG does not-it cannot-seriously contend that the flat glass producers increased
their list prices with no intention of affecting transaction prices. "[S]ellers
would not bother to fix list prices if they thought there would be no effect on
transaction prices." Id. Thus declining transaction prices despite an agreement
to fix list prices would constitute a failed attempt to fix prices. But a horizontal
agreement to fix prices need not succeed for sellers to be liable under the
Sherman Act; it is the attempt that the Sherman Act proscribes. See SoconyVacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. at 224 n. 59, 60 S.Ct. 811.
1. Evidence of an Agreement Among PPG's Competitors
The District Court concluded that the record "undoubtedly evidences that
several of the settling defendants conspired to fix prices." App. 46. We agree.
The most compelling basis for this conclusion is a document that LOF
submitted to the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division in 1995.
The Antitrust Division had a "Corporate Leniency Policy" in effect at the time
under which the DOJ accorded "leniency to corporations reporting their illegal
antitrust activity at an early stage, if they meet certain conditions." App. 6459.
Among the policy's requirements was that the cooperating corporation "report[]
the wrongdoing with candor and completeness and provide[] full, continuing
and complete cooperation that advances the Division in its investigation." App.
LOF sought leniency under the policy in 1995, but the Antitrust Division
concluded that LOF had not been sufficiently forthcoming with information of
its wrongdoing. "We are surprised that you consider our proffer, which
described an agreed upon, across the board price increase for the entire United
States," LOF responded, "to be less than a `full and complete disclosure.'" App.
LOF's response to the Antitrust Division does not directly state that it agreed
with PPG to raise prices. But a reasonable factfinder could infer such an
agreement from LOF's reference to an "across the board" price increase. Black's
Law Dictionary defines "across-the-board" as "[a]pplying to all classes,
categories, or groups." Black's Law Dictionary 24 (7th ed.1999). One
reasonable interpretation of LOF's statement is that LOF agreed with one or
more competitor to increase the price of all types of flat glass. Another is that
LOF agreed with all its competitors to increase prices on one or more category
of flat glass. And yet another is that LOF agreed with all its competitors to
increase the price of all types of flat glass.14
PPG argues that under our decision in In re Baby Food, "the fact that some
other glass producers may have attempted to fix prices in this case is
irrelevant." PPG Brief 82. We disagree. Even if LOF's statement — and any
other evidence — tends to show that PPG's competitors agreed among
themselves to raise prices but does not directly implicate PPG, it is surely not
irrelevant to whether PPG entered an agreement. If six firms act in parallel
fashion and there is evidence that five of the firms entered into an agreement,
for example, it is reasonable to infer that the sixth firm acted consistent with the
other five firms' actions because it was also a party to the agreement. That is
especially so if the sister firm's behavior mirrored that of the five conceded
coconspirators. In some circumstances, to be sure, such evidence might not be
sufficient alone to defeat summary judgment. See In re Citric Acid Litig., 191
F.3d 1090, 1106 (9th Cir.1999). But we need not determine whether it can be
here, because plaintiffs argue that additional evidence supports their contention
that PPG entered into an agreement.
2. The June-July 1991 Increase
On June 7, 1991, AFG announced that it was raising the price of its flat glass.
The price increase was to become effective on July 15, 1991. App. 3552.
Neither PPG nor any of AFG's other competitors raised their prices in
response.15
Also on June 7, 1991, top executives from Pilkington's various businesses
(including LOF) met in the United Kingdom. Minutes from the meeting state:
"There were indications that a price increase of approximately 8% would hold"
in the United States. App. 3868.
A week later, on June 13, 1991, two of LOF's board members (Tomoaki Abe
and Mr. Matsumora) traveled to Pennsylvania to play golf with Robert Duncan,
the Vice President of PPG's Glass Group. The night before they played golf,
Abe's administrative assistant sent him a fax relating a message from Glen
Nightingale, the Pilkington executive based in London with responsibility for
LOF.16 The fax stated: "Mr. Nightingale requests that you call him on Friday
morning [June 14] before you leave your hotel room-it will only take two
minutes. He seemed rather firm ..." App. 3890.
Two weeks later, on June 28, 1991, PPG announced a 7.5-9% price increase —
an amount different than the price increase AFG announced on June 7, but
notably approximately 8%- to be effective July 29, 1991. App. 5833. PPG's
competitors eventually followed suit with virtually identical price increases, to
be effective either July 29 or August 1, 1991. Ford announced its price increase
on July 1, app. 3472; LOF announced its price increase on July 8, app. 3474;
Guardian announced on July 9, app. 3482; and AFG rescinded its June 7
increase and announced a price increase in line with PPG's on July 10, app.
A copy of PPG's June 28, 1991 announcement produced from the files of John
Frazier (manager of PPG's Knoxville, Tennessee branch) contains a typewritten
note on it stating: "ALL OTHER MAJOR GLASS SUPPLIERS ARE
CONCURRENTLY RAISING PRICES THE SAME PERCENTAGE." App.
5833. Evidence suggests that Frazier received this document, together with the
typewritten notation, sometime before PPG's competitors had actually matched
PPG's price increase.17
On July 2, 1991, a Ford executive sent an email to his regional managers
stating that "[w]e must have total support of this industry pricing action and
focus our attention on implementing the price increase in an intelligent manner.
The actions being taken are important to the industry and will improve the
commercial glass profitability." App. 3553. As of that day, however, neither
LOF nor Guardian had announced a price increase. They announced increases
on July 8 and July 9, respectively.
A PPG internal document dated September 6, 1991 stated that the "price
increase was implemented without any problems." App. 5831. A similar
document, dated September 3, 1991, stated that "[t]he industry price increase
was implemented in August by all primary manufacturers, although varying
degrees of protection were offered by our competition." App. 5731. An internal
LOF document from November of 1991, however, stated that the "[p]rice
increase of 8/19/91 is unraveling at several key accounts due to
AFG/Glaverbec/Guardian's failure to hold the line on pricing and PPG's price
protected annual contracts through the year end." App. 1712.
To summarize: AFG raised its prices, but no one followed suit. LOF executives
expressed their opinion at a board meeting that an 8% increase in flat glass
prices would "hold." Two board members met with a PPG executive one week
later. Two weeks after the meeting, PPG raised its flat glass prices by
essentially the same amount that LOF executives thought would "hold." An
internal PPG memorandum, which might have been produced prior to any other
firm announcing an increase in its flat glass prices, states that other flat glass
producers were "concurrently raising prices the same percentage." The flat
glass manufacturers initially felt that the price increase had gone successfully,
but they later felt it was unsuccessful because at least some of them failed to
3. The September-October 1992 Price Increase
A July 1, 1992 entry in the pocket calendar for a Ford Regional Sales Manager
indicated that LOF was going to announce a price increase on Sept. 22, 1992,
effective Oct. 1, 1992, with increases of 9% on clear and tinted glass and 5% on
"Eclipse" glass. App. 3628. A few weeks later, on July 24, 1992, Joseph
Hudson-PPG's Eastern Zone Manager for Flat Glass Products, app. 5908-noted:
"No one, however, believes that demand will be robust enough to support a
price increase without significant discipline on the part of all float producers."
App. 5841. 18
In September of 1992, however, the competitors announced a 5-9% price
increase: AFG announced its price increase on September 15, 1992, to be
effective October 1, app. 3545; Guardian announced a price increase on
September 21, to be effective October 9, app. 3547; LOF announced on
September 22, to be effective October 1, app. 3476; and both PPG and Ford
announced their prices increases on September 23, to be effective October 12,
app. 3475, 3549. On September 24, AFG changed the effective date of its price
increase from October 1 to October 12. App. 3550.
Between September 22 and September 26, 1992, soon after the price increases
were announced, senior executives from the various competitors (PPG, Ford,
Guardian, and Pilkington) attended a "Glass Fair" meeting in Germany. A
Pilkington executive reported the following in a letter to LOF's Skeddle:
I was pleased to learn during the Glass Fair that an attempt to raise prices by
9% in the United States had been initially supported by all suppliers in the
marketplace. During the Fair, I also had the opportunity to meet with Russ
Ebeid of Guardian who assured me that they were fully supportive of the price
increase proposition. Clearly, this could make quite a difference to your results
if the price increase can stick.
App. 3895. This excerpt was removed from a later version of the letter. App.
7194.19
Finally, during the same time period in September of 1992, PPG's Hudson
reiterated his July comment that a price increase would not be consistent with
market conditions. According to Hudson, "[b]asic supply and demand do not
support this [1992] increase." App. 5908.20
To summarize: A Ford Regional Sales Manager was aware of the precise date
when LOF was going to announce a price increase almost three months ahead
of time, as well as the precise amounts of the increase. A PPG executive
believed that the market would not support a price increase. Nonetheless, PPG
and its competitors raised their prices by the same amount, all within eight days
of each other. Soon after the price increases were announced, executives from
the various flat glass producers attended a trade show at which a executive from
Guardian assured an executive from Pilkington that Guardian was "fully
supportive of the price increase proposition."
4. The May-June 1993 Price Increase
In December of 1992, AFG's Roger Kennedy told LOF's Roger Teat that AFG
was "considering another increase in May or June [of 1993] of about 5 or 6%."
App. 3720, 3456, 3458-59. Teat reported this to superiors at LOF with pricing
authority. App. 3721-23, 3456-58.21
LOF's preliminary budget for fiscal year 1994, dated January 21, 1993, refers
to a "May-June '93 price increase." App. 6432. Similarly, an LOF "CEO's
Review Report" from March 30, 1993 stated that there would be "a U.S.
domestic price increase in the May-June time frame." App. 4031.22 And LOF's
revised budget (dated April 5, 1993) also referred to a "May-June price
increase." App. 4669.23
A few months later, on April 16, 1993, AFG faxed to PPG a "prepublication"
copy of its May 17, 1993 5.5% price increase announcement (to be effective in
June). App. 6369.24 It also faxed a copy to Guardian. App. 3711.
PPG announced a 5.5% price increase on May 12, 1993, almost a week before
AFG was going to announce its price increase. App. 5840. The rest of PPG's
competitors quickly followed suit. LOF, AFG, and Ford announced five days
later, on May 17, 1993. App. 3477, 3708, 3478. Guardian announced on May
19, 1993. App. 6105.
After the price increases went into effect, John Musser (from PPG) reported
that "[t]he price increase of 5.5% announced in early May by all major float
producers for an implementation on or about June 7 has had the effect of
stabilizing prices." App. 5906.25 In a similar vein, an LOF report (dated June
21, 1993) stated: "Price increase is in effect from all major manufacturers. We
are monitoring the market to make sure that all stick to the rules and will report
any and all information we hear about." App. 3732.
PPG's Central Zone Manager, Thomas Merlitti, stated on June 25, 1993 that "
[t]he price increase implemented in June remains firmly in place as all major
flat glass producers are holding firm." App. 3507. And Hudson of PPG
reported: "The increase which was effective June 7 has been a nearly complete
success." App. 5794.
To summarize: AFG and LOF discussed a May-June 1993 price increase during
the preceding December, and LOF accounted for such an increase in its
forthcoming budget. In April, AFG faxed to PPG a copy of the increase it
planned to announce on May 17. PPG announced an identical increase on May
12, and the rest of the flat glass producers followed with identical price
increases. LOF was "monitoring the market to make sure that all stick to the
rules." The flat glass producers all "held firm," and executives from the firms
generally considered the price increase a "success." 5. Analytical Summary
The above evidence is sufficient to provide a finder of fact with a basis to
reasonably conclude that PPG agreed with the other flat glass producers to raise
prices. Put differently, there is "evidence that would enable a reasonable jury to
reject the hypothesis that the defendants foreswore price competition without
actually agreeing to do so." In re High Fructose Corn Syrup, 295 F.3d at 661
(citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348).
First, there is the evidence-including LOF's assertion that there was an "across
the board" agreement to increase prices-that PPG's competitors entered into an
agreement. And viewed collectively and holistically, there is evidence tending
to show that PPG was a party to an agreement to raise the price of flat glass on
PPG urges us to take a different approach. It appears to propose that we
consider each individual piece of evidence and disregard it if we could feasibly
interpret it as consistent with the absence of an agreement to raise prices. With
regard to the announcement that stated "all other major glass suppliers are
concurrently raising prices by the same percentage," for example, PPG argues
that the "facts suggest that the notation was placed on the announcement after
all glass producers had issued their announcements." PPG Br. 25 (emphasis
added). Similarly, PPG contends that the "most likely explanation" for the date
that appears on an AFG price announcement found in PPG's files "is that the
date stamp mechanism malfunctioned." PPG Br. 43. We echo the Seventh
Circuit's admonition in In re High Fructose Corn Syrup that the "statement of
facts in the defendants' brief combines a recital of the facts favorable to the
defendants with an interpretation favorable to them of the remaining evidence;
and that is the character of a trial brief rather than of a brief defending a grant
of summary judgment." 295 F.3d at 655. PPG's arguments are well-suited for
an argument before a jury, but they are irrelevant to our consideration in the
present posture of this case.
Alternatively, PPG appears to contend that we should disregard certain
categories of evidence, from various periods of time, because such evidence
does not in isolation lead inexorably to the conclusion that PPG entered into an
agreement. Tr. of Oral Argument 25. PPG argues, for example, that
competitors' possession of each others' price increase announcements or
meetings among competitors' executives cannot suffice to preclude summary
judgment. To be sure, the mere presence of such evidence does not require a
court to deny summary judgment. In In re Baby Food, we observed that "[w]e
do not believe that the mere possession of competitive memoranda is evidence
of concerted action to fix prices." 166 F.3d at 126. But the price-exchange
evidence in In re Baby Food was far less compelling than in this case. The In re
Baby Food plaintiffs relied upon testimony of competitors' price information
gathered by low-level sales employees in unsystematic fashion. Plaintiffs
pointed to a few competitors' memos in sales files, but there was no evidence of
how the documents got there. Additional evidence documented some awareness
of competitors' price increase plans. Notably, these scraps of evidence of
foreknowledge were not correlated to any actual concerted price increase
activity among all competitors.
We made two salient points in reviewing this evidence and rejecting the
inference of agreement. First, we noted that price discussion among low level
sales people has little probative weight; we distinguished the far different
situation where upper level executives have secret conversations about price. Id.
at 125 & n. 8 ("Evidence of sporadic exchanges of shop talk among field sales
representatives who lack pricing authority is insufficient to survive summary
judgment."). Second, and more important, we emphasized that "there must be
evidence that the exchanges of information had an impact on pricing
decisions." Id. at 125. The reason for this requirement is that exchanges of price
information may be compatible with competition, because they may "`increase
economic efficiency and render markets more, rather than less, competitive.'"
Id. (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 443 n.
16, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978)). The In re Baby Food plaintiffs
simply could not correlate information exchanges with specific collusive
behavior. Rather, they made the more amorphous claim that the exchanges of
information "impacted the market as a whole." Id.
The exchanges of information here, by contrast, are qualitatively different from
those in In re Baby Food, particularly when considered in the context of other
evidence. First, there is evidence tending to show that the exchanges occurred
at a higher level of the flat glass producers' structural hierarchy. Second, and
more importantly, a finder of fact could reasonably infer that the flat glass
producers used the information to implement collusive price increases; that is,
"the exchanges of information had an impact on pricing decisions." A court
must look to the evidence as a whole and consider any single piece of evidence
in the context of other evidence. See Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North
America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1364-65 (3d Cir.1992), cited in In re Baby Food,
166 F.3d at 124. So, for example, there is evidence that AFG faxed to PPG a
copy of a planned future increase that it had not announced publicly, PPG
announced an identical increase before AFG, and the rest of the flat glass
producers followed with identical price increases. It would take no stretch of
the imagination for a fact finder to infer from this evidence-one piece of which
is PPG's possession of a "competitive memoranda" — that PPG engaged in
concerted action to fix prices.
In sum, here the exchanges of information are more tightly linked with
concerted behavior and therefore they appear more purposive. Several of the
key documents emphasize that the relevant price increases were not
economically justified or supportable, but required competitors to hold the line.
Others suggest not just foreknowledge of a single competitor's pricing plans,
but of the plans of multiple competitors. Predictions of price behavior were
followed by actual price changes. The inference of concerted rather than
interdependent action is therefore stronger. In other words, these facts take the
exchanges of pricing information outside the realm of "mere possession." In re
Baby Food, 166 F.3d at 126.
We need not speculate as to whether something less than the evidence in this
record-two rate increases, for instance, rather than three-would suffice to deny
summary judgment. The evidence here, in its totality, is sufficient to go to a
B. Automotive Replacement Glass
As described above, PPG and other automotive replacement glass producers
supplied NAGS with their truckload list prices for various automotive
replacement glass products. NAGS would select a particular truckload price —
usually the truckload price of the identical OEM glass product — to devise
recommended retail prices for the products. NAGS devised the recommended
price by using a particular "multiplier" for each type of product.26 The glass
producers knew the multipliers NAGS used, and were able to calculate
backwards to the truckload price that NAGS had utilized. The producers would
then align their truckload list prices with the price that NAGS had used. As a
result, the automotive replacement glass producers often increased their prices
in parallel fashion.27
Plaintiffs argue that the evidence shows that PPG and other automotive
replacement glass producers agreed to raise their prices. They provide evidence
that although it was against PPG's official policy, PPG provided its truckload
pricing information to NAGS. Plaintiffs also refer to the NAGS website, which
at one point stated: "[M]anufacturers were in conflict over their published list
prices. As a neutral party NAGS was asked to assign list prices to NAGS part
numbers, establishing the NAGS List Price." App. 6444-45.28 In addition, a
chart that LOF devised depicts the process. It indicates that producers gave
their truckload prices to NAGS, NAGS selected a particular truckload price, the
producers issued a "new pricing schedule adjusted to NAGS," and as a result
"industry pricing stabilize[d]." App. 4939.
We understand why the NAGS Calculator would raise suspicion in plaintiffs'
minds, and why plaintiffs would seek discovery regarding PPG's use of the
calculator. Cf. Areeda, supra, ¶ 1435g, at 264-65 (discussing the use of "pricing
manuals"). But publication of pricing information can have a pro-competitive
effect. As we note above, we should therefore hesitate to rest on inference of
improper collusion from this ambiguous, or even pro-competitive, fact. See,
e.g., In re Baby Food, 166 F.3d at 126; Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1232. After
conducting discovery, plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to
create a genuine issue of material fact. First, there is no evidence that PPG or
any other automotive replacement glass producer exerted influence over the
truckload prices that NAGS selected to formulate recommended prices. And
there is no evidence-unlike the evidence we described above regarding flat
glass list prices-that the automotive replacement glass manufacturers agreed to
adjust their list prices according to the NAGS recommended price. We will
therefore affirm summary judgment on this claim.
The District Court excluded several categories of evidence before it decided
PPG's motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal from four of the
District Court's evidentiary determinations. We address them in turn.29
When plaintiffs sought to depose Skeddle and Bryant-the former LOF
executives who were charged with crimes and who alleged that LOF engaged in
illegal antitrust activity-they both asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege
against self incrimination. The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion in which
they urged the Court to compel Skeddle and Bryant to testify. Plaintiffs now
challenge the District Court's ruling on appeal. We review the Court's
determination for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Castro, 129 F.3d
226, 229 (1st Cir.1997).
As a general matter, a court should allow a witness to invoke his Fifth
Amendment privilege only if the hazard of incrimination is "substantial and
`real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445
U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980) (citation omitted). Yet
"the trial judge should order the witness to answer questions only if it is
perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case
that the answer cannot possibly tend to incriminate the witness." United States
v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 856 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124
S.Ct. 251, 157 L.Ed.2d 179 (2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted);
see also United States v. Yurasovich, 580 F.2d 1212, 1215-16 (3d Cir.1978)
("To support a contempt citation for a refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment
grounds ... it must be `Perfectly clear from a careful consideration of all the
circumstances in the case, that the witness (who invokes the privilege) is
mistaken, and that the answer(s) cannot Possibly have such a tendency to
incriminate.'").
Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred because (1) all relevant statutes of
limitations have run; and (2) the relevant prosecutorial authorities have stated
that they do not intend to bring criminal charges against Skeddle or Bryant. It is
irrelevant, however, that prosecutorial authorities have stated that they do not
intend to prosecute Skeddle or Bryant. See Matter of Special Federal Grand
Jury, 819 F.2d 56, 58 (3d Cir.1987) ("[A] promise by the government not to use
the testimony to be compelled, even if approved by a court, does not strip the
recipient of the protection of that privilege."). And Skeddle and Bryant have
sufficiently refuted plaintiffs' statute of limitations argument. To be sure, "if a
prosecution for a crime, concerning which the witness is interrogated, is barred
by the statute of limitations, he is compellable to answer." Brown v. Walker,
161 U.S. 591, 598, 16 S.Ct. 644, 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896). But, contrary to
plaintiffs' assertion, Skeddle and Bryant have identified several state statute of
limitations that have not run. In Michigan, for example, a defendant's absence
from the state tolls the statute of limitation for certain of the state's antitrust
laws. See Mich. Comp. Laws. Ann. §§ 445.781, 767.24(5). The District Court
did not abuse its discretion by declining to compel Skeddle and Bryant to
2. Skeddle's Notes
Over the course of the litigation, plaintiffs obtained a large collection of Ronald
Skeddle's handwritten notes. The notes fall into two general categories: notes
that LOF provided to plaintiffs during discovery and notes that the DOJ
produced to plaintiffs pursuant to an order of the District Court. App. 10746,
11154. Skeddle originally provided the latter notes, which the parties have
come to call the "Queen's File," to a grand jury empaneled in the spring of 1996
to investigate Skeddle's (and others) allegations of wrongdoing in the flat glass
industry.30
PPG filed two separate in limine motions seeking to exclude both categories of
notes, and the District Court granted its motions because it determined that the
notes contain "multiple levels of hearsay" and did not fall within any exception
to the hearsay rule. App. 47-48, 56-58. "[W]e review the district court's
decisions to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion, although our
review is plenary as to the interpretation or application of a legal standard
underlying such a decision." Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286,
1293 (3d Cir.1997) (citations omitted).
a. Non-Queen's File Notes
Plaintiffs argue that many portions of Skeddle's notes tend to support their
contentions that PPG agreed with its competitors to increase prices on at least
two of the three occasions we discussed above. With respect to the June-July
1991 price increase, plaintiffs reference a May 31, 1991 note that states: "Glen
[Nightingale] heard that Glaverbec wants to move upwards in N.E. Reg's."
App. 4567. Similarly, a note that plaintiffs argue Skeddle wrote no later than
May of 1991 states that Jim Collins, a PPG Regional Sales Manager,
"mentioned that PPG is looking at the possibility of an inc this summer." App.
With regard to the September-October 1992 price increase, plaintiffs refer to
notes that purportedly memorialize conversations Skeddle had with Glen
Nightingale, of Pilkington. First, a note dated February 6, 1992 provides:
"Clearly Glen has had discussions w AFG, Guardian, & probably indirectly w
PPG (crystal tower) re price increases, and is asking me now to supply him info
so that he can initiate more detailed discussions with his contacts." App. 3877.
And a note that plaintiffs contend pertains to a meeting Skeddle had with Glen
Nightingale on April 29, 1992 states:
Glen indicated he would make contacts w AFG and Glaverbel/Glaverbec to see
if he could get them to agree to come off their silly low prices and if he could
initiate a general price increase w/in the next 2 months.
He indicated he would get back to me to indicate his findings/effect following
App. 4581. Another note also ostensibly memorializing a conversation Skeddle
had with Glen Nightingale states that Nightingale met with AFG's Dee
Hubbard. The note mentions an "incremental increase" and states that "AFG
will lead-before Labor Day." App. 3891.
Similarly, a note from a meeting Skeddle had with LOF board member
Tomoaki Abe and dated November 17, 1992 contains the notation: "Mtgs. w
PPG, Guardian re lic'g, prices, etc." App. 10602. Finally, a note that plaintiffs
contend memorializes a July 13, 1992 conversation with Nightingale states:
Glen then related his information on North American flat glass pricing — the
info came from Hubbard of AFG, and the top guy at Glaverbel (Asahi) who
control Glaverbec in Canada, [illegible] controls AFG in the states.
The indication is that new "targets" have been established for AFG and
Glaverbec in Canada @ ~ above recent experience-letters will be forthcoming
to the general mkt place explaining new prices as follows:
These prices should go into effect 17th July.
100 Glen then related that Hubbard & he have "talked" and have together convinced
PPG to take the lead in putting up the price by ~7% with letter to go out in Sept.
92, to take effect Oct. 1, 1992-with PPG taking the lead.
101 App. 3893.
102 Plaintiffs argue that these statements are admissible because they are
statements of coconspirators under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and
therefore not hearsay. Alternatively, they argue that even if the statements are
hearsay they are admissible as statements against interest under Federal Rule of
Evidence 804(b)(3).
103 We first consider whether the District Court erred in concluding that the
statements were not admissible as against interest under Rule 804(b)(3). A
hearsay statement is nonetheless admissible if (1) "the declarant is unavailable
as a witness," United States v. Boyce, 849 F.2d 833, 836 (3d Cir.1988); (2) "the
statement is so far contrary to his pecuniary, proprietary or penal interest that `a
reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the
statement unless believing it to be true,'" id. (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3));
(3) "the trustworthiness and reliability of the statement [is] corroborated by the
`totality of circumstances' in the case," id.; and (4) the declarant had personal
knowledge (i.e., he perceived the facts to which the statement relates), see
United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir.1983); 5 Jack B. Weinstein
et al., Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 804.06[4] (2d ed.2003).31 The second
and third requirements are "somewhat redundant" and often require "`a
sensitive analysis of the circumstances in which the statement was made and
the precise nature of the statement.'" Boyce, 849 F.2d at 836 (quoting United
States v. Palumbo, 639 F.2d 123, 127 (3d Cir.1981)); see also United States v.
Moses, 148 F.3d 277, 280 (3d Cir.1998) ("This determination must be made `by
viewing [the statement] in context' and `in light of all the surrounding
circumstances.'") (quoting Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 603-604,
114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994)).
104 Here, the District Court concluded that Skeddle's statements were inadmissible
because they "have not been corroborated by the totality of the circumstances."
App. 47. Because this was the total of the District Court's analysis, the precise
basis for this conclusion is unclear. In its in limine motion before the District
Court, PPG appears to have offered three reasons why the totality of the
circumstances do not corroborate Skeddle's statements: (1) actual events did not
occur precisely as the notes indicated they would (e.g., PPG did not "lead" the
September 1992 price increase); (2) Skeddle's notes tend to implicate others
besides himself; and (3) Skeddle may not have written the notes
contemporaneously with the events he described in them. App. 10748-50.
105 The first two factors do not sufficiently impugn Skeddle's statements. To the
contrary, discrepancies between Skeddle's statements and later actual events
could tend to reinforce their veracity; statements that exactly mirrored what
occurred would arguably be more suspect. And there is no per se rule that
statements implicating another person in misconduct are not against the interest
of the declarant. See Moses, 148 F.3d at 280. We do not agree with PPG's
assertion that the statements, which relate the inculpatory statements of his
superiors (such as Nightingale), do not also inculpate Skeddle. Skeddle was the
President of LOF at the time of the alleged conspiracy. Discussions to increase
prices and Skeddle's knowledge of those discussions blanket him with antitrust
liability. Indeed, such liability likely forms the basis for Skeddle's invocation of
his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.
106 We agree, however, that a finding that Skeddle's notes were not
contemporaneous would support a conclusion that the statements are not
reliable or corroborated by the circumstances. Skeddle left LOF under a cloud
of mutual disaffection. Consequently, documenting LOF wrongdoing during a
time when LOF was alleging that Skeddle himself had engaged in wrongdoing
would tend to impugn Skeddle's motives and therefore also the reliability of the
statements. But it is not clear that the District Court excluded Skeddle's notes
because it found that they were not contemporaneous. Moreover, it is not clear
that the record supports such a conclusion; on their face, many of the notes give
no indication that they were ex post fabrications.
107 The District Court's summary disposition of PPG's in limine motion hinders our
ability to determine whether it abused its discretion. Cf. Becker v. ARCO
Chemical Co., 207 F.3d 176, 181 (3d Cir.2000) ("Where, however, the district
court fails to explain its grounds for denying a Rule 403 objection and its
reasons for doing so are not otherwise apparent from the record, there is no way
to review its discretion."). Since we conclude that a jury could find an
agreement existed even absent Skeddle's notes and we would remand on that
basis alone, we believe the best course is to allow the District Court to consider
these evidentiary matters in the first instance. We will therefore remand the
District Court's determination that Skeddle's statements were not against self
interest so that the Court can consider its rulings in light of our decision and
more fully explain any bases for its rulings.32
108 Similarly, we will also remand the District Court's determination that the
statements in Skeddle's notes were not statements of co-conspirators. "In order
for an out-of-court statement to be admissible pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E),
the district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a
conspiracy existed; (2) the declarant and the party against whom the statement
is offered were members of the conspiracy; (3) the statement was made in the
course of the conspiracy; and (4) the statement was made in furtherance of the
conspiracy." United States v. Ellis, 156 F.3d 493, 496 (3d Cir.1998).33
109 Here, the District Court determined that plaintiffs had not satisfied the second
requirement. It concluded that the statements in Skeddle's notes were not
admissible as co-conspirator statements because "plaintiffs have failed to
adduce sufficient evidence that PPG was a co-conspirator in the alleged pricefixing conspiracy." App. 48. 34 In other words, although the Court concluded
that there was evidence that a conspiracy existed, see app. 46, it found that there
was insufficient evidence that PPG was a party to the conspiracy.
110 It was plaintiffs' burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
statements in Skeddle's notes were made in the course of and in furtherance of a
conspiracy of which the declarant and PPG were members. See United States v.
McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 334 (3d Cir.1992) (citing Bourjaily v. United States,
483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)); 5 Jack B.
Weinstein et al., Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 801.34[6][a] (2d ed.2003).
And it was the District Court's role to determine whether plaintiffs satisfied
their burden. See Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775; Ammar, 714 F.2d
at 247 n. 5. In making this factual determination, a district court is not bound by
the rules of evidence. See Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 178-79, 107 S.Ct. 2775;
Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). Thus a district court can consider hearsay and other
inadmissible evidence. See McGlory, 968 F.2d at 334. And it must consider the
content of the alleged coconspirator statement as well, although the statements
require independent corroboration. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) ("The
contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to
establish ... the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the
declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered....").
111 The Court's summary disposition again hampers our review of its decision for
an abuse of discretion, however, which is the standard of review we must apply
to its Rule 801(d)(2)(E) determinations. See, e.g., United States v. Local 560
(I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 337 (1992). Insofar as the Court based its determination
on a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could
conclude that PPG entered into an agreement to fix prices, the District Court
erred for the reasons we set forth above. But simply because a jury could find
by a preponderance of the evidence that PPG entered into a conspiracy, it is not
the case that the District Court must find that plaintiffs showed by a
preponderance of the evidence that PPG entered into an agreement. Any
particular factual determination requires making a number of more
particularized factual determinations and weighing the relevant importance of
those determinations. And two factfinders could feasibly reach different
conclusion, especially under a preponderance of the evidence standard. To be
sure, however, "the Federal Rules of Evidence are to be liberally construed in
favor of admissibility." United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 204 (3d
112 Because we will remand plaintiffs' flat glass price fixing claim for further
proceedings, we again conclude that the best course is to remand the District
Court's determination that the statements in Skeddle's notes were not
coconspirator statements. See In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust
Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 263 (3d Cir.1983) (remanding Rule 801(2)(E)
determination to be reconsidered), rev'd on other grounds sub. nom. Matsushita
L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Thus the District Court can consider whether the
statements in Skeddle's notes are coconspirator statements with the benefit of
our discussion of the evidence tending to implicate PPG in a price-fixing
conspiracy, and can further explain any bases it might have for its reasoning.35
113 Finally, we note that many of the notes contain multiple levels of hearsay. See,
e.g., Carden v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 850 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (3d
Cir.1988); Fed.R.Evid. 805. One note states, for example, that Nightingale
"related" that he and an AFG executive "convinced PPG to take the lead in
putting up the price by ? with letter to go out in Sept. 92, to take effect Oct. 1,
1992-with PPG taking the lead." App. 3893. The note itself (Skeddle's
statement) and Nightingale's assertion that he convinced PPG to take the lead in
increasing prices are both out-of-court statements that plaintiffs seek to use to
prove the truth of the matter asserted. Either or both might be admissible as
statements of coconspirators as well as statements against interest. Again, we
think the District Court should make these determinations in the first instance,
taking into account our discussion in this opinion.
b. Queen's File Notes
114 The District Court concluded that the statements in the Queen's File notes, like
the statements in the other Skeddle notes, were not admissible as coconspirator
statements because "plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence that
PPG was a co-conspirator in the alleged price-fixing conspiracy." App. 57. It
also concluded that the statements were hearsay and the Queen's File was not
admissible under the statement against interest exception because "the
statements contained therein are not contrary to Skeddle's pecuniary or penal
interest" and because "the documents' trustworthiness and reliability are
questionable given the totality of the circumstances." App. 57.36
115 Since this was the sum of the District Court's reasoning, we turn to PPG's
arguments before the District Court to discern the bases for the Court's
decision. Cf. United States v. Himelwright, 42 F.3d 777, 781 (3d Cir.1994)
(looking to whether bases for district court's decision was "apparent from the
record" where the court did not explain the grounds for its decision). PPG
argued that most of the notes in the Queen's File "were written after Mr.
Skeddle's termination as chief executive officer of LOF on May 10, 1993, when
he, Edward Bryant (then LOF's head of manufacturing operations), and Darryl
Costin (then LOF's head of technical operations) were fired amidst allegations
of actionable self-dealing." App. 11154. Many of the notes appear, on their
face, to support PPG's contention. They are written in the third-person, for
example, and they refer to events that post-date Skeddle's termination. See, e.g.,
Supp.App. 437. One note, for instance, refers to the "summer of 1993" in the
past tense. App. 11154.
116 If the District Court concluded that the notes were not contemporaneous, it
could have concluded that the statements contained therein were not in
furtherance of a conspiracy or corroborated by the totality of the circumstances;
that is, it could have concluded that the statements were not admissible as
coconspirator statements or statements against interest. If we could conclude
that the District Court excluded all the Queen's File notes on that basis, we
would affirm the District Court's decision. But PPG concedes that not all the
Queen's File notes appear to be non-contemporaneous. See PPG Br. 94, Tr. of
Oral Argument 46. We will therefore remand the District Court's decision to
exclude the Queen's File notes for the same reasons we remand its
determination to exclude Skeddle's other notes. We think it best for the District
Court to have the opportunity to make these evidentiary determinations with the
benefit of our discussion here.
3. Evidence Concerning OEM Glass
117 As we explained above, PPG and others fabricated flat glass into products for
use in automobiles. Some of those products-called "original equipment
manufacturer" glass ("OEM glass")-were fabricated for use in new automobiles.
Others were fabricated for use as automotive replacement parts. The latter
products-called automotive replacement glass-are the same as OEM glass
products, but the markets for the two are distinct.
118 In order to prove that PPG conspired to fix the price of flat glass, plaintiffs
offered evidence that they argue shows that PPG conspired with LOF to fix the
price of OEM glass products. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that meetings and
conversations occurred between Edward Bryant — who was LOF's Executive
Vice President in charge of the firm's flat glass, automotive replacement glass,
and OEM businesses — and Frank Archinaco (the head of PPG's automotive
replacement glass and OEM businesses). These meetings and discussions were
private and occurred, according to plaintiffs, at "opportune times" for price
119 The District Court concluded that while the evidence constituted "other bad
acts" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404(b), it was admissible
for other acceptable purposes (e.g. motive, opportunity, or intent). Yet the
Court excluded the evidence because it determine that the evidence's probative
value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. App. 5455. This is a standard Rule 403 balance, which we review with "substantial
deference." McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 922 (3d
Cir.1985).37
120 While evidence that PPG and LOF conspired together in the OEM market
would be relevant to plaintiffs' claim that PPG also conspired to fix prices in the
market for flat glass, see In re High Fructose Corn Syrup, 295 F.3d at 661
(noting that defendant conceded to having fixed prices on related products
during the same time frame as the alleged conspiracy), Areeda, supra, ¶ 1421,
at 145, plaintiffs' evidence here is not particularly probative of any OEM glass
conspiracy. The weakness of this evidence also mitigates any danger of unfair
prejudice. But we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in
weighing these countervailing considerations, and we will therefore affirm the
Court's decision to exclude the OEM glass evidence.
121 We will affirm the District Court's decision granting summary judgment on
plaintiffs' claim that PPG conspired to fix the prices of automotive replacement
glass. We conclude, however, that there is sufficient evidence in the record-not
taking into account evidence the District Court excluded-from which a
reasonable jury could find that PPG conspired to fix the prices of flat glass. We
will therefore reverse the District Court's judgment and remand for further
proceedings. In addition, we will affirm the District Court's decisions declining
to compel Skeddle and Bryant to testify and excluding evidence regarding
OEM glass. But we will remand the Court's decision to exclude Skeddle's notes
so that the Court can consider its ruling in light of our opinion here and have a
further opportunity to explain the bases for its decisions.
Asahi also owns a company called Glaverbel, which was associated with AFG,
and a Canadian-based company called Glaverbec
A company named Cardinal Glass Industries ("Cardinal") accounted for
approximately 3% of domestic flat glass sales in 1995. Cardinal, which is not a
defendant in this suit, did not produce flat glass until 1992, when it purchased a
flat glass manufacturing plant that AFG built for it. Before that time, Cardinal
fabricated products from flat glass it purchased from PPG and others
The parties fail to adequately explain the relationship between OEM glass parts
and automotive replacement parts, which plaintiffs describe as "identical in
composition." Plaintiffs' Br. 4. We gather from the record that they differ in
two important respects. First, generally (but not always) only one OEM glass
producer exists for any particular product. Thus PPG alone might produce a
particular windshield that a car manufacturer uses in a particular model car. In
contrast, multiple manufacturers typically produce any one type of automotive
replacement part. So PPG, Guardian, and LOF might produce the automotive
replacement part that would replace the OEM product that only PPG produced
and sold to the car manufacturer. Second, OEM glass products are sold to a
particular car manufacturer, whereas the corresponding identical automotive
replacement glass products are sold to multiple wholesalers and retail installers
Automotive replacement glass fabricators produced approximately 10,000
different automotive replacement glass products. No one fabricator produced
all 10,000. PPG produced approximately 6,000. App. 585
The District Court catalogued these price increases as follows:
July of 1991, all defendants raised their prices within days of each other by 7.59%, with an effective date of July 29 or August 1, 1991; September of 1992, all
defendants raised their prices within days of each other by 5-9% with an
effective date of October 1 or October 12; May of 1993, defendants raised their
prices within days of each other by 5.5% with an effective date of June 7 or 9;
October of 1993, defendants raised their prices within days of each other by
6.5% with an effective date of October 30 or November 1, 1993; April of 1994
all defendants raised their prices by 5-9% with an effective date of May 1 or 2;
August of 1994, all defendants raised their prices by 5-8% with an effective
date of September 19, 1994; March of 1995, all defendants raised their prices
by 6% with an effective date of April 3 or 11.
App. 16 n. 4 (internal citations to District Court record omitted).
judgmentSee, e.g., InterVest Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 340 F.3d 144, 158 (3d
Cir.2003).
The "strictures ofMatsushita do not apply" when a plaintiff provides direct
evidence of a conspiracy. Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1233. That is because "no
inferences are required from direct evidence to establish a fact and thus a court
need not be concerned about the reasonableness of the inferences to be drawn
from such evidence." Id. In addition, "the focus in Matsushita was on
ambiguous evidence, and what inferences reasonably could be drawn from that
evidence." Id. (internal citation omitted).
As one prominent antitrust commentator has explained:
Matsushita spoke in the context of a highly improbable twenty-year-long
predatory pricing conspiracy and required high-quality evidence to permit such
a conspiracy to be presented to a jury.... However, Matsushita itself said little
about proof requirements in a case where underlying structural evidence
indicates that the offense is quite plausible and would be profitable for the
Herbert Hovenkamp, The Rationalization of Antitrust, 116 Harv. L.Rev. 917,
925-26 (2003) (reviewing Richard A. Posner, Antitrust Law (2d ed.2001)).
A leading antitrust scholar, who now authors the Areeda treatise, has
characterized these cases at least in part as "an unfortunate misinterpretation"
ofMatsushita. Herbert Hovenkamp, The Rationalization of Antitrust, 116 Harv.
L.Rev. at 925 ("[U]nfortunately, many courts have read Matsushita as requiring
a certain quantum evidence of verbal agreement before summary judgment can
be avoided.").
"For example, in a market of one hundred sellers of equal size, an expansion in
output of 20 percent by one of them will result in an average fall in output of
only about .2 percent for each of the others, so a seller need not worry in
making his pricing decisions about the reactions of his rivals." Richard A.
Posner,Antitrust Law 56 (2nd ed.2001). But if "there are three sellers of equal
size, a 20 percent expansion in the sales of one will cause the sales of each of
the others to fall by an average of 10 percent-a sales loss the victims can hardly
overlook." Id.
Thus in order to establish illegal concerted action based on "consciously
parallel behavior, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendants' behavior was
parallel; (2) that the defendants were conscious of each other's conduct and that
this awareness was an element in their decision-making process; and (3) certain
`plus' factors."Petruzzi's, 998 F.2d at 1242, quoted in InterVest, 340 F.3d at
165. It is undisputed that the first two circumstances exist here, and we
therefore concentrate on the third and final.
Neither factor is "strictly necessary."In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation, 295 F.3d 651, 655 (7th Cir.2002). Thus this type of economic
evidence is neither necessary nor sufficient to conclude that sufficient proof of
an agreement exists to preclude summary judgment, but it is relevant and courts
should as a general matter consider it.
We also observe that certain types of "actions against self interest" may do
more than restate economic interdependence. For example, non-price acts
against self-interest, such as apparently unilateral exchanges of confidential
price information, cannot simply be explained as a result of oligopolostic
interdependence. See Blomkest Fertilizer, Inc., 203 F.3d at 1046-47 (Gibson, J.,
PPG argued before the District Court, for example, that "controlling case law
precludes an antitrust plaintiff from avoiding summary judgment by reliance on
evidence relating to list prices." App. 667. PPG misstates the law. Declining
transaction prices will tend to support a conclusion that competitors did not
enter into an agreement to fix prices where the other record evidence also fails
to sufficiently prove an agreementSee, e.g., Clamp-All Corp., 851 F.2d at 484
("[T]he fact that [the defendants] often set prices that deviated from their price
lists helps support the inference that the similarity of price lists reflects
individual decisions to copy, rather than any more formal pricing agreement.").
Our decision in In re Baby Food is not to the contrary. In the specific factual
setting of that case-involving "hundreds of products" and multiple complicated
discounts and price promotions-we concluded that plaintiffs' and their experts'
use of list price data was insufficient to show that parallel pricing had occurred.
166 F.3d at 128-29. Significantly, the defendants made "similar pricing
decisions" 15.5% of the time and priced their products differently 84.5% of the
time. Id. at 128. The District Court therefore concluded, in a portion of its
decision that we cited with approval, that the plaintiffs were "unable to show
that defendants' prices moved in a parallel fashion. That is true both for list
prices and transaction prices." Id.
PPG does not argue that LOF's proffer is not admissible, and we therefore
assume that it is for purposes of this decision. In any case, however, we would
reach the same result even if we did not consider LOF's proffer
AFG raised the price of its "pattern glass" by 4%, its "thin glass products" by
5%, its "gray and bronze thicknesses" by 9%, and its "4mm-12mm" also by 9%.
App. 3552
LOF's proffer to the DOJ identified Nightingale as an individual "involved in
the 1992 activities." App. 5003. It also stated that Nightingale had "discussions
with [an AFG executive] that resulted in a price move." App. 5004. Nightingale
invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination when
plaintiffs sought to depose him
PPG on the other hand argues that there is evidence suggesting that someone
typed the note on the June 28 announcementafter its competitors announced
their price increases. PPG is undoubtedly correct; this document's time frame is
a disputed fact and a finder of fact could reasonably reach the conclusion PPG
urges us to draw. But a fact finder could also reasonably conclude the opposite,
and it is black letter law that we must draw all reasonable inferences in
plaintiffs' favor at this point in the proceedings.
A fuller excerpt from the cited portion of the record states:
Glaverbec appears to have quieted down just a bit in terms of new aggressive
pricing, seemingly for the first time to be content with current absurdly low
prices. Significantly, for the first time, Glaverbec is reported to have said that
their tank is sold out. All producers, including PPG, continue to react
selectively to Glaverbec's pricing and attempt to protect selected customers and
Discussion and rumors surrounding a possible price increase later in the year
are widespread in the market place. No one, however, believes that demand
will be robust enough to support a price increase without significant discipline
on the part of all float producers.
App. 5841.
Even if this statement does not unambiguously tend to show that flat glass
producers agreed ahead of time to raise prices, it at least tends to show that
there was an agreement to maintain higher prices despite competitive demands
(i.e. to "make it stick")
The full excerpt from the record reads:
Certainly the hot topic on the pricing front is the industry increase announced
during September to be effective in October. Basic supply and demand do not
support this increase, so it will require discipline on the part of each
manufacturer. Glaverbec, Guardian's mirror operations and AFG's distribution
arm are keys to the success of the increase.
App. 5908.
Kennedy was an officer and director of AFG. Although Teat did not have
pricing authority, his precise position at LOF is unclear from the record
A fuller excerpt stated:
A price increase has been initiated in Eastern Canada by PPG to be effective
March 22; 7% increase for all clear, uncased product (2.3mm through 6.0mm)
and a 9% increase for clear cased product. It is anticipated that this increase
will be a lead into a U.S. domestic price increase in the May-June timeframe.
LOF is following the Canadian lead and including heavy clear and tint product
App. 4031.
In addition, Ford's business plan (dated April 29, 1993) also referred to a 5%
price increase. App. 3698. Under the heading "Possible Opportunities and
Improvements," it stated: "A 5% market price increase spurred by cyclical
recovery with increased industry capacity utilization would increase profits by
almost $3 million." App. 3697-98
PPG urges that AFG did not send the fax on April 16, 1993, arguing that the
most likely explanation for the date's appearance on the fax is that the fax
machine malfunctioned. PPG is free to make this argument to a jury, but surely
a reasonable finder of fact could infer that the date on the fax means that it was
The price increase of 5.5% announced in early May by all major float producers
for an implementation on or about June 7 has had the effect of stabilizing
prices. Overall customer reaction to the increase has been favorable,
particularly in the mirror and distributor/fabricator segments. Sash accounts
who are not price protected are resisting the increased [sic], to a degree. The
modest amount of the increase, the perceived cost justification for the increase,
and the firmness to date of all float producers, however, are all positive factors
which project that the announced prices will hold. The highest degree of
uncertainty resides on the West Coast, which has the lowest level of industry
App. 5906.
The multiplier for domestic windshields, for example, was 4.06.App. 2980
PPG, Ford and LOF increased the price of windshields by 7% and tempered
parts by 8%, for example, in February-March of 1992. App. 5913, 5917, 7184.
Similarly, in January-February of 1992 they increased windshield prices by 9%
and tempered parts by 10%. App. 4899, 7192, 7187
A fuller excerpt states:
In the 1950s, manufacturers were in conflict over their published list prices. As
a neutral party NAGS was asked to assign list prices to NAGS part numbers,
establishing the NAGS List Price. These prices reflected the industry practice
of discounting and were based on manufacturers' truckload prices. NAGS
started publishing the part numbers with prices, establishing the `NAGS
App. 6444-45 (emphasis added).
We do not address the District Court's other evidentiary rulings, such as its
decision to exclude the transcript of Skeddle's grand jury testimony. Plaintiffs
opine that the District Court erred when it excluded the testimony, but they do
not appeal from that decision. Plaintiffs' Br. 18
There is apparently some amount of overlap between the two categories of
notes: LOF had already produced a portion of the notes that plaintiffs also
obtained as part of the Queen's File.App. 11154 n. 3
tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a
claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the
declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be
true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and
offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating
Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3). We note that the Confrontation Clause raises some
additional issues about admissibility of such testimony in a criminal case, but
those concerns are irrelevant in this civil case. See Crawford v. Washington,
___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
In this regard, the District Court should determine whether, because the
statements at issue were diary entries, Skeddle believed that they would be seen
by anyone. This may bear on whether they qualify as statements against
interestSee Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 505
F.Supp. 1190, 1259-60 (E.D.Pa.1980), issue aff'd In re Japanese Electronic
Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 300 (3d Cir.1983), rev'd on other
grounds sub. nom Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). We do not categorically
hold that diary entries cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 804(b)(3), see
Walker v. Lockhart, 763 F.2d 942, 951 n. 18 (8th Cir.1985) (en banc), but we
do believe that a searching inquiry is appropriate here, In re Japanese
Electronic Products, 723 F.2d at 300.
There is no requirement that the declarant be speaking from personal
knowledgeSee United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir.1983); 5 Jack
B. Weinstein et al., Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 801.23[2] (2d ed.2003).
The District Court characterized the admissibility of coconspirator statements
as an "exception to the hearsay rule." Rules 803 and 804 set forth exceptions to
the hearsay rule; that is, they explain when statements are admissible even
though they qualify as hearsay. Rule 801(d), however, sets forth statements that
are admissible because they do not constitute hearsay, including statements "by
a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the
conspiracy." Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(E)
PPG argues that the District Court concluded that the statements in Skeddle's
notes were not in furtherance of any conspiracy, ostensibly because-as PPG
argues-Skeddle did not create the notes at the same time as the events he
purports to describe in them. But nothing in the Court's decision indicates that
this was a basis for its determination that the statements were inadmissible. The
District Court will surely consider PPG's arguments in this regard on remand
The District Court also concluded that the Queen's File and non-Queen's File
notes did not fall within the business records exception of Rule 803(6). App.
47, 56-57. And the Court found that the "Queen's File does not qualify as an
admission by a party opponent under Rules 801(d)(2)(A), (B), (C), or (D)."
App. 57-58. Plaintiffs do not argue that the District Court erred in these
determinations, and we therefore do not address them
PPG also argues that we should affirm the District Court's decision because a
reasonable jury could not conclude that PPG committed the "other bad acts" —
conspiring in the OEM market — that plaintiffs argue tend to show that PPG
conspired to fix the prices of flat glassSee Huddleston v. United States, 485
U.S. 681, 689, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). The District Court did
not exclude the OEM glass evidence on that basis, however, and we need not
address PPG's argument since we affirm on other grounds.
Documents Similar To In Re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation (Mdl No. 1200) Brian S. Nelson, D/B/A Jamestown Glass Service Mel's Auto Glass, Inc. A. Waxman & Co., on Behalf of Itself, and All Others Similarly Situated Designer Windows, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Moses Moore All Glass Aspects, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Aaa Glass, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, D/B/A the Glass Doctor the Lurie Companies, Inc. Vstb Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Perfecto Auto Glass & Upholstery and Its Successors Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc., on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Healy, Jr. County Auto Glass, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Gerard J. Clabbers, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Kirschner Corporation, Inc., T/a Berwyn Glass Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated Hartung Agalite Glass Co., D/B/A Hartung Glass IndustSkip carouselGlass TechnologyGlass technology roadmapTemperature Variations With Respect to the Specific Gravity of GlSaferstein Ch 04 - Physical Properties Glass and SoilpharmaceuticsCase 6 - International Decorative GlassShould New Merger Guidelines Give UPP Market Definition?Chap14Applications and Processing of CeramicsJ Conserv DentExplanation TextGlass TypesGlass ArttGlassHomemade.apparatusImages_pdf_4500 Sliding Glass Door SpecificationRancangan Amali Tahunan 2o15TTHeatSoakCompetitive EthicsU.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc., Counterclaim v. Rule Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellee, Tie Down, Inc., A/K/A Tie Down Engineering, Inc., Counterclaim Cross-Appellee, William Chapman, Counterclaim, 27 F.3d 521, 11th Cir. (1994)Glass in Today's ArchitectureUntitledAnalysis Shattered Forensic GlassEnglishGlossary of Furnace TermsSiliconPreparation of Porous Glass Monoliths with an Aligned Pore System via Stretch Forming.pdfFocusReinvigorating Antitrust EnforcementSunflower FunVirginia Impression Products Co., Inc. v. Scm Corporation, Virginia Impression Products Co., Inc. v. Scm Corporation, 448 F.2d 262, 4th Cir. (1971)Documents About Price FixingSkip carouselAlbrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968)ftc_ar_1965.pdfCatalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U.S. 643 (1980)Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984)Law v. NCAA, 134 F.3d 1010, 10th Cir. (1998)Medical Arts Pharmacy of Stamford, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 675 F.2d 502, 2d Cir. (1982)8152_1995-19998154_1995-1999econcomm_19820712.pdfNovember 22, 1963Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006)United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 (1927)Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of La., 278 U.S. 235 (1929)Olsen v. Nebraska Ex Rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., Inc., 313 U.S. 236 (1941)United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942)Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Mfg. Co., 329 U.S. 394 (1947)MacGregor v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 329 U.S. 402 (1947)United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948)Cities Service Co. v. Peerless Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950)Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Corp., 341 U.S. 384 (1951)United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 351 U.S. 305 (1956)Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 76 (1962)White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1963)United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967)United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365 (1967)United States v. Container Corporation of America, 393 U.S. 333 (1969)Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U.S. 332 (1982)Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48 (1985)Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990)State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)More From Scribd Government DocsSkip carouselHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - HOPE DEFERREDHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - REFORMING THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCILSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - HELPING AMERICANS PREPARE FOR RETIREMENTHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NATIONAL OCEAN POLICYHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - HOW SECURE ARE U.S. BIORESEARCH LABS? PREVENTING THE NEXT SAFETY LAPSEJOINT HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - ATROCITIES IN IRAQ AND SYRIAHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - PROBING DHS'S BOTCHED MANAGEMENT OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - PASSENGER RAILSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - KEEPING GOODS MOVING IN AMERICA'S HEARTLANDHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - ASSESSING THE OBAMA YEARSSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - THE STATUS OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRYHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - 21ST CENTURY CONSERVATION PRACTICESHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - FIREARMS AND MUNITIONS AT RISKHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGETSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - THE STATE OF THE U.S. MARITIME INDUSTRYSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - OVERSIGHT OF THE IMPACT OF EPA AND FWS REGULATIONSON CITIZENS PRIVATE PROPERTYHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - THE FUTURE OF IRANIAN TERROR AND ITS THREAT TO THE U.S. HOMELANDHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATIONHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS OF LAW AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR CROSS BORDER DATA REQUESTS BY LAW ENFORCEMENTHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - H.R.1869, ``ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COST TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015''; H.R. 2993, ``WATER RECYCLING ACCELERATION ACT OF 2015''; AND H.R. 4582, ``SAVE OUR SALMON (SOS) ACT''HOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEDICARE ACCESS & CHIP REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015 (MACRA)HOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - HEARINGS TO EXAMINE USDA ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIONHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATIONHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICEHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSEHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - AGRICULTURE AND NATIONAL SECURITYSENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFESENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - ACCESSING USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - STRENGTHENING EDUCATION RESEARCH AND PRIVACY PROTECTIONS TO BETTER SERVE STUDENTSHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE COSTS