IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 1917, Case No. 07-cv-05944-JST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 17, 2025
Document 6487, Re: ECF No. 6484
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS RE: CERTAIN DEMONSTRATIVES AND TESTIMONY OFFERED BY INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Having reviewed the objections by Defendants Irico Group Corporation and Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Irico“) to certain demonstratives and testimony offered by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs“), ECF No. 6484, the Court sustains the objections. As IPPs explain, the challenged testimony concerns their expert, Dr. Netz, running a regression model developed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“DPPs“) expert, Dr. Johnson, “with certain adjustments,” including the use of “Weighted Least Squares (‘WLS‘) instead of Ordinary Least Squares (‘OLS‘)” and “calculat[ing] the weighted average rate using revenues instead of quantities.” Id. at 5-6 (footnote omitted). IPPs contend that this testimony responds to calculations made by Irico‘s expert regarding Netz‘s and Johnson‘s overcharge estimates. Id. at 6 (citing ECF No. 6467-1 ¶ 19 (Guerin-Calvert Decl.)). But Guerin-Calvert was applying simple math, as opposed to changing any regression models. ECF No. 6467-1 ¶ 19 (explaining that Netz calculated overcharge estimates as a percentage of actual prices, while Johnson calculated them as a percentage of but-for prices, and how Guerin-Calvert “convert[ed] the percentage overcharge estimates reported in the IPP case so that they are expressed in the same terms as the percentage overcharge estimates in the DPP case“). Netz may testify as to whether she would have converted
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2025
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge