Buy This Entire Record For
In re Cathode Ray Tube Crt Antitrust Litigation
United States District Court, N.D. California
March 9, 2017
IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE CRT ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05264 This Relates To Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al.
Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-06325; Interbond Corporation of America
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-05727; Office Depot, Inc.
Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-81174; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, et al.
Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-06327; Target Corp.
Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05686; Costco Wholesale Corporation
Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-02037; Schultze Agency Services, LLC
Technicolor SA, Ltd., et al., No. 13-cv-05668; Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al.
Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05262; Dell Inc., et al.
Phillips Electronics North America Corporation, et al., No. 13-cv-2171; Tech Data Corp., et al.
Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No.13-cv-00157; Siegel
Technicolor SA, et al., No.13-cv-05261; Viewsonic Corporation
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., et al., No.13-cv-02510. MDL No. 1917
ORDER DENYING MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TIGAR, United States District Judge
the Court is Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Corporation's
(“Mitsubishi”) Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
No. 3033-4. For the reasons below, the Court will deny the
suit was originally filed in 2007, ECF No. 1, consolidated by
the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shortly
thereafter, see ECF No. 122, assigned as a
Multidistrict Litigation case (“MDL”) to Judge
Samuel Conti, see id., and ultimately transferred to
the undersigned, see ECF No. 4162. In addition to
two class actions, this MDL involves various direct actions
from individual plaintiffs who opted out of the class
actions, including the DAPs that oppose the present motions.
Each DAP alleges that it bought at least one CRT Finished
Product from a Defendant or an entity owned or controlled by
was a buyer and seller of CRTs during the Conspiracy Period.
ECF No. 3033-4 at 17. On November 7, 2014, Mitsubishi moved
for summary judgment based on an absence of evidence of
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242
125 F.3d 732
the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden
of proof at trial, that party bears the initial burden of
producing evidence that would entitle it to a directed
verdict if uncontroverted at trial. See C.A.R. Transp.
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests, Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480
(9th Cir. 2000). Where the party moving for summary judgment
would not bear the burden of proof at trial, that party bears
the initial burden of either producing evidence that negates
an essential element of the non-moving party's claim, or
showing that the non-moving party does not have enough
evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden
of persuasion at trial. If the moving party satisfies its
initial burden of production, then the non-moving party must
produce admissible evidence to show that a genuine issue of
material fact exists. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir.
2000). The non-moving party must “identify with
reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary
judgment.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279
(9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, it is not the duty of the district
court “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue
of triable fact.” Id. “A mere scintilla
of evidence will not be sufficient to defeat a properly
supported motion for summary judgment; rather, the non-moving
party must introduce some significant probative evidence
tending to support the complaint.” Summers v.
Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.
1997) (citation and internal quotations omitted). If the
non-moving party fails to make this showing, the moving party
is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
antitrust cases, these general standards are applied even
more stringently and summary judgments granted more
sparingly.” Beltz Travel Serv., Inc. v. Int'l
Air Transp. Ass'n, 620 F.2d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir.
1980). As a general matter, “plaintiffs should be given
the full benefit of their proof without tightly
compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping
the slate clean after scrutiny of each. . . . The character
and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by
dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by
looking at it as a whole.” Cont'l Ore Co. v.
Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 698-99
(1962) (alterations omitted). Nonetheless, “conduct as
consistent with permissible competition as with illegal
conspiracy does not, standing alone, support an inference of
antitrust conspiracy.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). Rather,
to defeat a motion for summary judgment, “a plaintiff
seeking damages for a violation of § 1 must present
evidence 'that tends to exclude the possibility”
that the alleged conspirators acted
independently.'” Id. (quoting Monsanto
Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764
During the relevant period, the defendant, through its
officers and employees, including high-level personnel of the
defendant, participated in a conspiracy among major CDT
producers, the primary purpose of which was to fix prices,
reduce output, and allocate market shares of CDTs sold in the
United States and elsewhere. In furtherance of the
conspiracy, the defendant, through its officers and
employees, engaged in discussions and attended meetings with
representatives of other major CDT producers. During these
discussions and meetings, agreements were reached to fix
prices, reduce output, and allocate market shares of CDTs to
be sold in the United States and elsewhere.
ECF No. 3269-6 at 4. The ambiguity in the plea's language
prompted Plaintiffs to serve supplemental interrogatories on
SDI. SDI's responses implicated Mitsubishi. First, when
asked which entities SDI meant in its plea with the phrase
“major CDT producers, ” SDI stated that
“[a]t least one Mitsubishi entity and at least one
Chunghwa entity participated in the CDT conspiracy described
in SDI's Plea Agreement.” ECF No. 3269-8 at 16.
Second, when asked which representatives of those other CDT
producers participated in meetings with SDI, SDI named
“Katou Nakashima, who SDI understood to be a
representative of at least one Mitsubishi entity, and Chang
Yuan Lin and ...