IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
4:13-md-02420
N.D. Cal.Jun 16, 2017Background
- Microsoft (successor to Nokia’s mobile business) alleges a global price‑fixing conspiracy for lithium‑ion batteries (2000–2011) and contends former Samsung SDI employee Hee Joung Moon participated.
- Microsoft seeks a letter rogatory to depose Moon in the United Kingdom based on emails and other evidence suggesting Moon communicated with Samsung’s competitors and negotiated pricing affecting Nokia’s global purchases.
- Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) joined Microsoft’s motion; Samsung opposed, arguing the discovery sought relates to extraterritorial matters and may be used in parallel arbitration in Finland, and asked the court to defer ruling pending a stay motion.
- Microsoft and the IPPs contend Moon’s testimony is relevant not only to claims against Samsung (partly stayed) but also to live claims against LG Chem, citing evidence of Moon’s communications with LG Chem personnel.
- The court found the requested discovery relevant and proportional under Federal Rules 26 and 28, Samsung failed to show good reason to deny the request, and granted issuance of a letter rogatory for Moon’s deposition.
- The court ordered Microsoft and the IPPs to confer on a revised joint letter rogatory (reflecting IPP joinder) and obtain Samsung’s approval on form; filing due within seven days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should issue a letter rogatory to obtain deposition of foreign witness Moon | Moon has relevant, discoverable information about pricing communications affecting Nokia and LG Chem claims; deposition permitted under Rule 28(b) | Discovery relates to extraterritorial matters and may be sought for use in Finland arbitration; court should defer or deny pending stay | Granted: court exercised discretion to issue letter rogatory; discovery deemed relevant and Defendant failed to show good reason to deny |
| Whether information sought is relevant/proportional under Rule 26 | Testimony bears directly on claims against remaining defendants (LG Chem) and is proportional | Discovery request is improper use of process and relates to non‑U.S. activities | Court found scope of request relevant and proportional and permissible for discovery |
| Whether court should weigh potential use in foreign arbitration when deciding letter rogatory | Use in arbitration does not negate relevance to pending litigation here | Alleged misuse of discovery to aid arbitration warrants denial or delay | Court declined to bar discovery on that basis, noting Samsung did not dispute Moon’s relevant communications |
| Whether opposing party must show good reason to deny issuance | Microsoft: letter rogatory within court’s discretion and routine when witness abroad | Samsung: asserted policy concerns and pending stay — provided no substantive rebuttal of relevance | Court held opposing party (Samsung) failed to show good reason; issuance appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Marroquin–Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129 (3rd Cir. 1983) (discussing letters rogatory and judicial assistance for foreign witness testimony)
- Staples v. United States, 256 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1958) (recognizing district courts’ authority to issue letters rogatory)
- United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d 165 (6th Cir. 1971) (affirming use of letters rogatory to obtain documents and testimony abroad)
- Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (describing breadth of discovery relevance under Rule 26)