In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation - US Chamber Litigation Center

82 Pages·2014·0.69 MB·English

Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1
No. 13-3215
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
________________
IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
________________
CLASS PLAINTIFFS,
Appellees
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of Kansas
The Honorable John W. Lungstrum
D.C. No. 04-md-1616-JWL
________________
CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE BRIEF
________________
ROBERTA D. LIEBENBERG PAUL D. CLEMENT
DONALD L. PERELMAN Counsel of Record
GERARD A. DEVER ZACHARY D. TRIPP
MATTHEW DUNCAN CANDICE CHIU
FINE, KAPLAN WILLIAM R. LEVI
AND BLACK, RPC BANCROFT PLLC
One South Broad Street 1919 M Street NW
23rd Floor Suite 470
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
[email protected]
Counsel for Class Plaintiffs’
Additional counsel on inside cover
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

February 14, 2014
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 2
RICHARD A. KOFFMAN MICHAEL J. GUZMAN
KIT A. PIERSON REBECCA A. BEYNON
CHRISTOPHER J. CORMIER MICHAEL N. NEMELKA
SHARON K. ROBERTSON KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN,
LAURA A. ALEXANDER TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS 1615 M Street NW
& TOLL, PLLC Suite 400
1100 New York Avenue NW Sumner Square
Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20036
Washington, DC 20005
JOSEPH GOLDBERG ROBERT W. COYKENDALL
FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER ROGER N. WALTER
GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD, P.A. MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK
20 First Plaza & KENNEDY, CHARTERED
Suite 700 300 North Mead
Albuquerque, NM 87102 Suite 200
Wichita, KS 67202
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 3
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Named plaintiffs Seegott Holdings, Inc., Industrial Polymers, Inc. and
Quabaug Corporation have no parent corporation or affiliates that are publicly
traded. No publicly traded company owns ten percent or more of the stock of any
named plaintiff.

i
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
STATEMENT OF PRIOR OR RELATED CASES ................................................. xi
ISSUES PRESENTED ...............................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................4
A. Statutory Scheme ........................................................................................4
B. The Urethanes Industry ..............................................................................4
C. The Price-Fixing Conspiracy ......................................................................8
1. A Phone Call ..........................................................................................8
2. Lockstep Price Increases .......................................................................8
3. Conspiratorial Communications ............................................................9
4. Email, Phone Records, and Other Corroborating Evidence................12
5. The Conspirators Reinforced Their Agreement ..................................13
6. Lay Evidence of Class-Wide Impact ...................................................14
7. Expert Opinion Testimony ..................................................................15
D. Procedural History ....................................................................................21
STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................25
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................26
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................29
I. Sufficient Evidence Supports The Jury’s Class-Wide Verdict ......................29
ii
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 5
A. Sufficient Evidence Shows That Dow Participated in a Price-Fixing
Conspiracy, Including With Lyondell .......................................................29
B. Sufficient Evidence Shows Class-Wide Injury ........................................31
II. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Refusing To Decertify
The Class After A Successful Trial ................................................................37
A. Common Questions Predominated ...........................................................37
B. Certification Was Consistent With Wal-Mart ...........................................43
1. Dow Was Not Deprived of Individualized Defenses ..........................44
2. There Was a Trial With Overwhelming Common Evidence of Class-
Wide Liability, Not a “Trial By Formula” ...........................................47
C. Certification Was Consistent With Comcast ............................................51
1. Extensive Evidence Including McClave’s Trial Testimony Provided
the Causal Link That Was Missing in Comcast ..................................51
2. McClave’s Testimony Was Properly Admitted Under Daubert ..........56
3. McClave Did Not Predict Overcharges Where None Could Exist .....58
III. The Jury’s Damages Award Is Supported By Sufficient Evidence And
Consistent With The Seventh Amendment ....................................................61
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................65
STATEMENT OF COUNSEL AS TO ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................65
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................67
CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION ........................................................68
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................69

iii
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 6
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Advantor Capital Corp. v. Yeary,
136 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................61
Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.,
333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................64
Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................. 2, 38, 47
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds,
133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) .........................................................................................46
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co.,
738 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................32
Bazemore v. Friday,
478 U.S. 385 (1986) (per curiam) ........................................................... 35, 53, 57
Behrend v. Comcast Corp.,
264 F.R.D. 150 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ...........................................................................52
Behrend v. Comcast Corp.,
655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011) .................................................................................52
Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.,
327 U.S. 251 (1946) .......................................................................... 25, 50, 54, 62
Blankenship v. Herzfeld,
661 F.2d 840 (10th Cir. 1981) ..............................................................................31
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
444 U.S. 472 (1980) .............................................................................................64
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) ................................................................................. passim
Continental Ore v. Union Carbine & Carbon Corp.,
370 U.S. 690 (1962) ...................................................................................... 36, 53
iv
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 7
Cooper v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond,
467 U.S. 867 (1984) .............................................................................................64
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharms.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993) .............................................................................................57
DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn,
594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 26, 49
Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
2012 WL 957633 (D. Mass. Mar. 21, 2012) ........................................................46
Elm Ridge Exploration Co. v. Engle,
721 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................25
Escue v. N. Okla. Coll.,
450 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................61
FDIC v. Noel,
177 F.3d 911 (10th Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................30
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.,
405 U.S. 251 (1972) .........................................................................................4, 38
In re Bulk [Extruded] Graphite Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
2006 WL 891362 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2006) ...............................................................40
In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litig.,
2005 WL 102966 (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2005) .........................................................40
In re Deepwater Horizon,
739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 47, 49
In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig.,
256 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2009) ......................................................... 33, 39, 40, 54
In re Evanston Nw. Corp. Antitrust Litig.,
2013 WL 6490152 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2013) .......................................................46
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig.,
191 F.R.D. 472 (W.D. Pa. 1999) ..........................................................................40
v
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 8
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig.,
385 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 30, 31
In re Foundry Resins Antitrust Litig.,
242 F.R.D. 393 (S.D. Ohio 2007) ................................................................. 39, 40
In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig.,
295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................... 33, 40
In re High Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 5770992 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) ............ 33, 46
In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
289 F.R.D. 555 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .........................................................................46
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,
305 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 33, 39, 51
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,
497 F. Supp. 2d 666 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ...................................................................54
In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig.,
169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ................................................................... 40, 64
In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig.,
522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008).....................................................................................47
In re Pharm. Indus. Avg. Wholesale Price Litig.,
582 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2009).................................................................................64
In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litig.,
690 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 30, 32, 40
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................60
In re Rubber Chems. Antitrust Litig.,
232 F.R.D. 346 (N.D. Ca. 2005) ..........................................................................40
In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig.,
527 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ passim
vi
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 9
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
2012 WL 253298 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012) ........................................................46
In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig.,
2013 WL 4110501 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2013) .........................................................30
In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig.,
284 F.R.D. 328 (D. Md. 2012) .............................................................................40
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig.,
209 F.R.D. 251 (D.D.C. 2002) .............................................................................40
J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,
451 U.S. 557 (1981) ...................................................................................... 32, 62
Johnson v. Michelin Tire Co.,
812 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................61
King & King Enters. v. Champlin Petroleum Co.,
657 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................62
Knowlton v. Teltrust Phones, Inc.,
189 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 25, 26
Kohen v. Pacific Inv. Mgmt. Co.,
571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................49
Law v. NCAA,
5 F. Supp. 2d 921 (D. Kan. 1998) ................................................................. 32, 40
Loeb Indus., Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp.,
306 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................37
Manpower, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa.,
732 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 48, 57
Martinez v. Union Pac. R.R.,
714 F.2d 1028 (10th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................63
Medcom Holding Co. v. Baxter Travenol Labs., Inc.,
106 F.3d 1388 (7th Cir. 1997) ..............................................................................63
vii
Appellate Case: 13-3215 Document: 01019203268 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 10
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem,
669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 38, 49
Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.,
395 U.S. 642 (1969) .............................................................................................32
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133 (2000) ................................................................................ 25, 36, 53
Robinson v. Tex. Auto. Dealers Assoc.,
387 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................47
Russo v. Ballard Med. Prods.,
550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................62
Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers,
904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) ..............................................................................64
Truck Ins. Exch. v. MagneTek, Inc.,
360 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................56
Tuf Racing Prods., Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.,
223 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................63
United Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd.,
210 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................61
United States for Use & Benefit of Fed. Corp.
v. Commercial Mech. Contractors, Inc.,
707 F.2d 1124 (10th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................63
United States v. Caldwell,
589 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................59
United States v. City of New York,
276 F.R.D. 22 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ............................................................................46
United States v. Coughlin,
610 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................59
United States v. Garcia,
635 F.3d 472 (10th Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................26
viii