Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/complaint-146
Timestamp: 2016-02-15 00:39:06
Document Index: 495499992

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1331', '§ 1', '§ 22', '§ 1391', '§ 1']

U.S. v. Lucasfilm Ltd. Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010Document Type: Complaints
This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7100 Washington, D.C. 20530 Plaintiff, v. LUCASFILM LTD. 1110 Gorgas Avenue San Francisco, CA 94129, Defendant. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Case: 1:10-cv-02220 Assigned To: Walton, Reggie B. Assign. Date: 12/21/2010 Description: Antitrust
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action challenges under Section 1 of the Sherman Act an agreement between Lucasfilm and Pixar that restrained competition between them for highly skilled digital animators.
4. Lucasfilm hires specialized digital animators throughout the United States, and sells completed digital animation films throughout the United States. Such activities, including the recruitment and hiring activities at issue in this Complaint, are in the flow of and substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 to prevent and restrain Lucasfilm from violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 5. Venue is proper in this judicial district under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c). Lucasfilm transacts or has transacted substantial business here. DEFENDANT
13. Although Lucasfilm and Pixar employ a variety of recruiting techniques, cold calling another studio's employees is an effective method of competing for digital animators. Cold calling involves communicating directly in any manner (including orally, in writing, telephonically, or electronically) with another firm's employee who has not otherwise applied for a job opening. Lucasfilm and Pixar frequently recruit employees by cold calling because other studios' employees have the specialized skills necessary for the vacant position and may be unresponsive to other methods of recruiting. 14. Lucasfilm and Pixar also aggressively bid against other digital animation studios for the services of talented employees and prospective employees. When the labor market is functioning without illegal competitive restraints, savvy employees can use these studios' aggressive tactics to extract multiple rounds of bidding, thus increasing their eventual salaries.
16. Beginning no later than January 2005, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to a protocol regarding the recruitment of each other's employees. The agreement included three requirements: (1) that the firms not cold call each other's employees; (2) that the firms notify each other when making an offer to an employee of the other firm; and (3) that the firm making an offer to the other firm's employee not counteroffer above its initial offer. 17. This agreement was not ancillary to any legitimate collaboration between Lucasfilm and Pixar. Senior executives at Lucasfilm and Pixar reached this express agreement through direct and explicit communications. The executives actively managed and enforced the agreement through direct communications.
VIOLATION ALLEGED(Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act)
23. Lucasfilm's agreement constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade that is per se unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
(D) award the United States such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper to redress and prevent recurrence of the alleged violations and to dissipate the anticompetitive effects of the illegal agreements entered into by Lucasfilm; and (E) award the United States the costs of this action.
Dated this 21st day of December 2010. FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES:
_______________/s/________________ Christine A. Varney Assistant Attorney General D.C. Bar #411654 _______________/s/________________ Molly S. Boast Deputy Assistant Attorney General
_______________/s/________________ Katherine S. Forrest Deputy Assistant Attorney General
_______________/s/________________ Patricia A. Brink Director of Civil Enforcement
_______________/s/________________ James J. Tierney, Chief Networks and Technology Section D.C. Bar #434610
_______________/s/________________ Scott A. Scheele, Assistant Chief Networks and Technology Section D.C. Bar #429061
_______________/s/________________ Adam T. Severt Ryan S. Struve (D.C. Bar #495406) Jessica N. Butler-Arkow (D.C. Bar #430022) H. Joseph Pinto III Anthony D. Scicchitano Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Networks and Technology Section 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Suite 7100 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-6200 Facsimile: (202) 616-8544 adam.severt@usdoj.gov
I, Adam Severt, hereby certify that on December 21, 2010, I caused a copy of the Complaint to be served on Defendant Lucasfilm by mailing the document via email to the duly authorized legal representatives of the defendant, as follows:
FOR DEFENDANT LUCASFILM, LTD. Claudia R. Higgins, Esq. Kaye Scholer LLP 901 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005
_______________/s/________________ Adam T. Severt Trial Attorney Networks & Technology Section U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Suite 7100 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-6200 Fax: (202) 616-8544 Email: adam.severt@usdoj.gov
Attachments: Download 265395.pdf (174.27 KB) Updated June 30, 2015