Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Phased discovery will continue in lithium ion battery litigation, (Jul 16, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

In multi-district civil antitrust litigation brought against manufacturers of lithium ion battery cells by direct and indirect purchasers, the federal district court in Oakland has determined that it was appropriate for the parties to conduct phased discovery (In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, July 11, 2014, Ryu, D.).

The purchasers alleged a conspiracy among Japanese and Korean battery manufacturers, as well as their American subsidiaries, to fix prices for lithium ion battery cells. The manufacturers allegedly carried out the conspiracy by exchanging business-sensitive information, limiting output and supply, setting price floors, agreeing on industry-wide pricing formulas tied to the price of battery inputs, and bid rigging.

Lithium ion battery cells are components of lithium ion batteries. These batteries reach the consumer market either as components of consumer products or as standalone products, such as replacement batteries.

After the parties submitted a joint discovery letter brief, the court issued this order outlining whether and to what extent discovery should proceed.

The court ordered the parties to submit their protocol on the form of production of electronically stored information (ESI) and deposition protocol for the court’s approval. If the parties do not reach a full agreement regarding the deposition protocol by the required date, they must submit a joint setting forth all agreements reached and identifying any specific disputes for resolution by the court.

Each manufacturer that produced documents to the U.S. Department of Justice and/or any grand jury in connection with any investigation relating to lithium ion batteries or battery products must identify the following information for the sources from which documents were ultimately produced: the identities of current and former employees whose documents were produced; the time period for which documents and information were collected; and the types of sources that were searched for information.

Each foreign manufacturer must comply with its initial disclosure obligations regarding identification of individuals and documents. The scope of relevant claims and defenses encompasses the allegations of a conspiracy among the foreign manufacturers to fix prices of lithium ion batteries at the cell level, for the period 2002 to 2011. After the initial disclosures are complete, the parties shall meet and confer regarding whether the scope of the initial disclosures should encompass their defenses to the alleged conspiracy to fix prices of lithium ion batteries at the original equipment manufacturers level.

The court did not order the production of transactional data. However, the parties were ordered to begin proceedings on ESI in order to be prepared to start search and production without delay as the case becomes clearer.

The purchasers may immediately serve interrogatories on all foreign manufacturers regarding their corporate structures, location of relevant facilities, and identification of customers. The parties shall negotiate an appropriate response deadline.

The case is No. 13-MD-2420-YGR (DMR).

Attorneys: Jeff D. Friedman (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP) for Kevin Young. Lindsey A. Davis (Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP) for The Stereo Shop. Beth Targan Seltzer (Barrack Rodos and Bacine) for First Choice Marketing Inc. Allan Steyer (Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP) for Automation Engineering, LLC. Todd Anthony Seaver (Berman DeValerio) for Univision-Crimson Holding, Inc. Jason H. Kim (Schneider Wallace Cottrell Knoecky LLP) for KCN Services LLC. Kenneth P. Ewing (Steptoe & Johnson LLP) for LG Chem Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. Jeffrey L. Kessler (Winston & Strawn LLP) and Roxann E. Henry (Morrison and Foerster LLP) for Panasonic Corp., Panasonic Corp. of North America, and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews