In Re Tft-Lcd (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
820 F. Supp. 2d 1055
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This order denies LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment on withdrawal.
- LG argues withdrawal occurred July 13, 2006 after self-report to the DOJ and commencement of DOJ guidance.
- Evidence includes a DOJ letter stating LG reported on July 13, 2006 and a Lee declaration describing post-withdrawal conduct lacking price-fix directives.
- The court recognizes withdrawal as an affirmative defense and places burden on LG to show withdrawal with a high standard on summary judgment.
- The court finds the DOJ letter and Lee declaration insufficient on their own and notes plaintiffs’ lack of discovery into LG’s communications with DOJ.
- Material issues of fact remain regarding the extent of LG’s withdrawal, and the record shows LG’s pricing behavior post-withdrawal may not have changed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LG Withdrawn from the conspiracy as a matter of law | LG argues withdrawal effective July 13, 2006 | LG contends DOJ self-report and instructions show withdrawal | No; withdrawal not established as a matter of law on the record |
| Whether the DOJ letter and Lee declaration suffice to prove withdrawal | Evidence inadequate to show withdrawal | Documentation supports withdrawal claim | No; record deemed insufficient for summary judgment |
| Whether there is a material issue of fact as to LG’s post-withdrawal conduct | Pricing relationships remained with co-conspirators after withdrawal | LG asserts continued compliance with DOJ guidance. | Yes; factual disputes exist regarding withdrawal extent and conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (withdrawal can be shown by affirmative acts or disclosure to authorities)
- Greenfield v. United States, 44 F.3d 1141 (2d Cir. 1995) (making a clean breast or notifying authorities can establish withdrawal)
- Finestone v. United States, 816 F.2d 583 (11th Cir. 1987) (withdrawal requires affirmative steps communicated to co-conspirators or law enforcement)
- In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 1997) (withdrawal requires reporting to authorities or announcing withdrawal to coconspirators)
- Lothian v. United States, 976 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1992) (withdrawal requires affirmative action; burden on government to prove otherwise after prima facie showing)
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard where movant bears burden of persuasion)