Applied Antitrust: Case Development and Litigation Strategy

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Home page

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

4. Antitrust class actions

 

6. Proving reasonableness

5. Proving Conspiracy

Class notes and required reading
Significant precedents
Plurality
Motions to dismiss and the Twombly standard
Proof of conspiracy through circumstantial evidence and summary judgment
Proof of conspiracy through circumstantial evidence at trial
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Required Reading
Supplemental Reading

Class Notes and Required Reading

Class notes and materials

Unit 5 notes (full page format)

Unit 5 notes (half-page notes format)

Unit 5 required reading (complete set)

 
Appeals

± 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appeals from final decisions of district courts)

± 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (interlocutory appeals)

± 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (circuits in which decisions reviewable)

± Fed. R. App. P. 1 (scope of rules)

± Fed. R. App. P. 3 (appeal as of right-how taken)

± Fed. R. App. P. 4 (appeal as of right-when taken)

± Fed. R. App. P. 5 (appeal by permission)

± Federal court locator (map)

Writ of Certiorari

± 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (certiorari)

± 28 U.S.C. § 2101 (time for appeal or certiorari)

± Sup. Ct. R. 10 (Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari)

± Sup. Ct. R. 11 (Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment)

± Sup. Ct. R. 13 (Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning)

± Sup. Ct. R. 14 (Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)

± Sup. Ct. R. 15 (Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs)

± Sup. Ct. R. 16 (Disposition of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)

± Supreme Court website

± Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (eff. July 1, 2013)

± The Oyez Project (a multimedia archive of the Supreme Court–including oral arguments–maintained by the Chicago-Kent College of Law–highly recommended)

Significant Precedents

Plurality
 

± Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (full text) (± Oyez)

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, No. 08-661 (May 24, 2010) (reported as 560 U.S. 183) (± Oyez)

Expansive early cases:

United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218 (1947)

Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 (1951)

Defining conspiracy
 

± United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910) (holding that the illegal agreement itself, not the overt acts performed in furtherance of it, is the gravamen of conspiracy)

± American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810 (1946) (defining conspiracy as a “unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement”)

± Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764 (1984) (± Oyez) (defining conspiracy as a “conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective”)

Conscious parallelism
 

± Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939)

± Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 346 U.S. 537 (1954) (± Oyez) (parallel conduct)

± E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1984), vacating Ethyl Corp., 101 F.T.C. 425 (1983)

Motions to dismiss
 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (± Oyez)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (± Oyez)

Summary judgment
 

Standard

± Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962) (± Oyez)

± Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

± Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Application to conspiracy

± United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)

± Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (± Oyez)

± Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (± Oyez)

± Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988) (± Oyez)

 

Plurality

Background

Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (excerpt)

± Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (full text) (± Oyez)

± United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)

± Gregory v. Fort Bridger Rendezvous Ass'n, No. 04-8100 (10th Cir. May 23, 2006) (reported at 448 F.3d 1195)

Expansive early cases:

United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218 (1947).

Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 (1951).

American Needle

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, No. 08-661 (May 24, 2010) (reported as 560 U.S. 183) (± Oyez)

 

—Court of Appeals
 

American Needle Inc. v. National Football League, No. 07-4006 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008) (reported as 538 F.3d 736)

Oral argument before the Seventh Circuit (June 2, 2008)

—Supreme Court: Certiorari

 

± Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Nov. 17, 2008)

± Docket sheet (Docket No. 08-661)

± SCOTUS Wiki background

± Brief for the NFL Respondents (Jan. 21, 2008)

Respondent Reebok International, Ltd. waived its right to file a response

Supreme Court invites the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States (Feb. 23, 2009)

± Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (May 28, 2009) (recommending that certiorari be denied)

± Supplemental Brief of Petitioner (June 8, 2009)

Certiorari granted (June 29, 2009)

—Supreme Court: Merits briefs
 

± Merits briefs filed in case

Selected briefs:

± Brief for Petitioner American Needle, Inc. (Sept. 18, 2009)

± Amicus Curiae Brief of Economists in Support of Petitioner (Sept. 24, 2009)

± Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner (Sept. 25, 2009)

± Brief for the American Antitrust Institute and the Consumer Federation of America in Support of Petitioner (Sept. 25, 2009)

± Brief of Amici Curiae Merchant Trade Associations in Support of Petitioner American Needle, Inc. and for Reversal of the Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sept. 25, 2009)

± Brief for the NFL Respondents (Nov. 17, 2009)

± Brief of Respondent Reebok International LTD(Nov. 17, 2009)

± Brief of Mastercard Worldwide and Visa Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (Nov. 24, 2009)

± Brief for Electronic Arts Inc. as Amicus Curiae Supporting the NFL Respondents (Nov. 24, 2009)

± Brief of Economists as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (Nov. 24, 2009)

± Reply Brief for Petitioner American Needle, Inc. (Dec. 17, 2009)

—Supreme Court: Oral argument

 

± Transcript (Jan. 13, 2010)

—Supreme Court: Opinion

 

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, No. 08-661 (May 24, 2010) (reported as 560 U.S. 183) (± Oyez)

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, American Needle and the Boundaries of the Firm in Antitrust Law (June 1, 2010)

—On remand to the Fifth Circuit
 

Order, American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 07-4006 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2010) (remanding to the district court)

—On remand to the Northern District of Illinois
 

Docket Sheet, American Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, No. 04-c-7806 (N.D. Ill.) (downloaded August 7, 2012)

Joint Status Report (May 19, 2011)

As of August 7, 2012, the case remains in pretrial discovery.

Significant post-American Needle precedents

North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners, No. 12-1172 (4th Cir.
May 31, 2013) (reported at 717 F.3d 359) (excerpt)

 

   

Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Cos., Nos. 11-1538, 11-1539, 11-1540, 11-1541 (4th Cir. May 14, 2012) (reported as 679 F.3d 278)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Aug. 29, 2011)

Motions to Dismiss and the Twombly Standard

Rules

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
(general rules of pleading)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 11
(signing pleadings, motions, and other papers; representations to the court; sanctions)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
(motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)
(provides to striking portions of a complaint)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 54
(judgment)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 58
(entering judgment)

 

Significant precedents

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (± Oyez)

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (exhibits)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (± Oyez)

Commentrary

See ± Joe S. Cecil, George W. Cort, Margaret S. Williams & Jared J. Bataillon, Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim After Iqbal, Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Fed. Jud. Ctr. March 2011).

Andrea Kuperman, Review of Case Law Applying Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Memorandum to the Civil Rules Committee and the Standing Rules Committee (Nov. 23, 2011).

Recent cases—Allegations sufficient

In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., No. 10-8037 (7th Cir. Dec. 29, 2010) (reported at 630 F.3d 622) (granting interlocutory appeal and affirming finding of complaint sufficiency)

Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand (Apr. 29, 2009) (found legally insufficient in Dec. 10 opinion)

N.D. Ill. docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)

In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 7082, 2009 WL 5066652 (N.D .Ill. Dec. 10, 2009) (finding CCAC legally insufficeint)

Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (May 4, 2010)

Memorandum Opionion and Order, In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 7082, later opinion, MDL No. 1997, 2010 WL 1782006 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2010) (granting leave to amend and finding amended complaint sufficient)

 

 

Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. dupont de Nemours & Co., No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB
(D. Md. Mar. 29, 2011)

Class Action Complaint, Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. dupont de Nemours & Co., No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB D. Md. filed Feb. 9, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 26, 2014)

Memorandum Opinion (Mar. 31, 2011) (granting Cristal's motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 28, 2012) (granting motion for class certification)

Memorandum Opinion (May 1, 2013) (denying motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' experts)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 14, 2013) (denying defendants' motions for summary judgment) (reported at 959 F. Supp. 2d 799)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 26, 2013) (granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, Motion to Strike, and Renewed Motion to Amend the Class Definition)

 

 

 

Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., No. 12–1730 (1st Cir. June 19, 2013) (reported at 720 F.3d 33) (reversing dismissal of complaint)

Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., No. 1:11-cv-10807-RGS (D. Mass. June 7, 2012) (granting rule 12(b)(6) motions)

D. Mass. docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 30, 2014)

First Circuit docket sheet (No. 12-1730) (downloaded Mar. 30, 2014)

Appellant’s Opening Brief (Oct. 16, 2012)

Appellees’ Consolidated Brief (Dec. 6, 2012)

Appellant’s Reply Brief (Jan. 10, 2013)

 

In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig., No. 12–md–02311. (E.D. Mich.,June 6, 2013) (reported at 2013 WL 2456584)

Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 202, 203), In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., Case No. 08-MD-0195 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2010) (reported at 723 F. Supp. 2d 987)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 25, 2014)
Amended Class Action Complaint (Sept. 15, 2009)

Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Complaint (Mar. 11, 2011)

Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re Potash Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1996 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 11, 2009) (reported as 667 F. Supp. 2d 907)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)
Direct Purchaser Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Apr. 3, 2009)
Indirect Purchasers' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Apr. 3, 2009)

Standard Iron Works v. ArcelorMittal, No. 08 C 5214 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2009) (reported as 639 F. Supp. 2d 877)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)
Complaint (Sept. 12, 2008)

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. M 07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (reported as 599 F. Supp. 2d 1179)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 23, 2014)

First Amended Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint (Dec. 5, 2008)
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (Dec. 5, 2008)

Memorandum and Order, Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, Civ. A. No. 07-12388-EFH (D. Mass. Dec. 15, 2009) (reported as 655 F. Supp. 2d 146)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)
Third Amended Class Action Complaint (Aug. 26, 2008)
Transcript of motion hearing (Nov. 13, 2008)

In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., No. M:07-cv-01819-CW (N.D. Cal. 2008) (reported at 580 F. Supp. 2d 896)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)

Consolidated Class Action Complaint: Direct Purchaser Class (Sept. 14, 2007)

First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal and State Antitrust Laws, State Consumer Protection Laws and State Common Law of Unjust Enrichment (Indirect Purchaser Class) (Sept. 17, 2009)

In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., MDL Dkt. No. 1869 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2008) (sustaining pleading of direct purchaser claims) (reported as 587 F. Supp. 2d 27)

In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., MDL Dkt. No. 1869 (D.D.C. Dec. 31, 2008) (sustaining pleading of indirect purchaser claims) (reported as 593 F.Supp.2d 29)

In re OSB Antitrust Litig., Master File No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2007) (reported at 2007 WL 2253419)

In re Rubber Chems. Antitrust Litig., 504 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

Recent cases—Allegations insufficient

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Md. v. Citigroup, Inc., Nos. 10–0722–cv(L), 10–0867–cv(CON) (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2013) (reported at 709 F.3d 129)

S.D.N.Y.

Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Sherman Act, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Md. v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-07746-BSJ-DCF (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 4, 2008)

Docket sheet (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:08-cv-07746-BSJ-DCF) (downloaded Mar. 25, 2014)

Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Sherman Act, Mayfield v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-07747-BSJ-DCF (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 4, 2008)

Docket sheet (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:08-cv-07747-BSJ-DCF) (downloaded Mar. 25, 2014)

Order (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2010) (dismissing complaints)

Second Circuit

Docket sheet (No. 10–0722–cv(L)) (downloaded Mar. 25, 2014)

Brief and Special Appendix of Plaintiffs-Appellants Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland and All Others Similarly Situated (July 15, 2010)

Brief for Defendants-Appellees (Nov. 9, 2010)

Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland and All Others Similarly Situated (Dec. 23, 2010)

 

 
 

In re Travel Agent Comm'n Antitrust Litig., No. 07-4464 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2009) (reported at 583 F.3d 896), aff'g MDL Docket No. 1561, 2007 WL 3171675 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2007)

Docket sheet (N.D. Ohio) (downloaded March 4, 2012)
First Amended Complaint (Sept. 14, 2007)
Case terminated Dec. 13, 2010 (upon receiving mandate from Sixth Circuit)

In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007)

Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., Civ. A. No. 1:08CV1394 (S.D. Miss Feb. 25, 2010) (granting without prejudice BlueLinx's motion to dismiss)

Second Amended Complaint (Sept. 16, 2009)

In re California Title Ins. Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3756686 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009)

Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., Civ. No. 07-556-JJF-LPS, 2009 WL 840589 (D. Del. March 30, 2009)

In re LTL Shipping Services Antitrust Litig., No. 1:08-MD-01895-WSD, 2009 WL 323219 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2009)

Twombly commentary
 

± Edward Brunet, The Substantive Origins of "Plausible Pleadings"— An Introduction to the Symposium on Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Research Paper Series No. 2010-5, 2010)

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond (Nov. 18, 2009)

± Edward A. Hartnett, Taming Twombly, Even After Iqbal, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 473 (2009)

± Robert G. Bone, Twombly, Pleading Rules, and the Regulation of Court Access, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 873 (2009)

± Richard A. Epstein, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly: How Motions to Dismiss Become (Disguised) Summary Judgments (April 2008)

± Shearman & Sterling LLP, Antitrust Digest: Emerging Trends and Patterns in Federal Antitrust Cases After Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (March 2009)

Twombly repealer
 

± Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, S. 1504, 111th Cong. § 2 (2009) ("Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress or by an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which takes effect after the date of enactment of this Act, a Federal court shall not dismiss a complaint under rule 12(b)(6) or (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).") (last action: referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on July 22, 2009)

Proof of Conspiracy through Circumstantial Evidence and Summary Judgment

Rules

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
(summary judgment)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 54
(judgment; costs)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 58
(entering judgment)

 

 

Significant summary judgment precedents
 

± Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962) (± Oyez)

± Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

± Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Significant conspiracy applications
 

± United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)

± Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (± Oyez)

± Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (± Oyez)

± Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988) (± Oyez)

Case study

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., No. 1:08-MDL-1935 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2014) (granting summary judgment)

Order (Feb. 26, 2014)

Cadbury Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of the Cadbury Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2013)

Other briefs filed under seal

Nestlé U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2013)

All briefs were filed under seal

Motion by Defendants The Hershey Company and Hershey Canada Inc. for Summary Judgment as to the Direct Purchaser Class (May 31, 2013)

All briefs were filed under seal

See here for case materials and briefs

Major cases cited:

In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., No. 03-2920 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2004) (reported at 385 F.3d 350)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 6, 2014)

No briefs available on PACER0

± In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999)

Recent cases—Granting summary judgment
 

Opinion, White v. R.M. Packer Co., No. 10-1130 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2011), aff'g in part, vacating in part, No. 3:04md1631 (D. Conn. Dec. 14, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 19, 2011)

Plaintiffs/Appellants’ Brief (March 24, 2010)

Defendants - Appellees’ Brief (April 28. 2011)

Plaintiffs/Appellants' Reply Brief (May 10, 2010)

Judgment (February 18, 2011)

Mandate (February 18, 2011)

Recent cases—Denying summary judgment
 

In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig., No. RDB–10–0318 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2013) (reported at 959 F. Supp. 2d 799)

Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 07–12388–EFH (D. Mass. Mar. 13, 2013) (reported at 937 F. Supp. 2d 119)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 27, 2014)

Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 07–12388–EFH (D. Mass. July 18, 2013) (reported at 963 F. Supp. 2d 38)

In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litig., No. 11-101-cv (2d Cir. 2012) (reported at 690 F.3d 51)

Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., 458 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2006), on remand, Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., No. CIV-02-0528-HE, 2008 WL 5205204 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2008)

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2007) (reported at 504 F. Supp. 38)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 19, 2011) (case terminated Nov. 3, 2008)

Summary judgment briefs were filed under seal

Proof of Conspiracy through Circumstantial Evidence at Trial

Rules

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 50
(judgment as a matter of law (jmol) in a jury trial; related motion for a new trial; conditional ruling)

 
Recent cases

Opinion and Order, United States v. Apple Inc., Nos. 12 Civ. 2826(DLC), 12 Civ. 3394(DLC) (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2013) ("eBooks")

United States’ Post-Trial Memorandum (June 20, 2013) (slides)

Apple Inc.’s Post-Trial Memorandum (June 20, 2013) (slides)

See below for case materials

 

 

Toledo Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., No. 07-1811 (3d Cir. June 17, 2008) (reported as 530 F.3d 204)

E.D. Pa. docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012) (case terminated June 12, 2009)

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Mack Trucks, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Sept. 26, 2006)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Sept. 28, 2006)

NB: Mack Trucks probably made its jmol motion in a hearing before the judge and at the same time submitted its supporting memorandum. In the same hearing, the judge apparently indicated that he would grant the motion with respect to the Section 1 claim, which is why the Plaintiff's memorandum is styled in as a motion for reconsideration.

Defendant Mack Trucks, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Oct. 2, 2006)

Civil Judgment (Oct. 12, 2006)

On remand:

Verdict Slip (June 11, 2009)

Civil Judgment (June 11, 2008) (in favor of defendant following a jury verdict)

On second appeal:

Verdict slip (June 12, 2009)

Judgment (Aug. 10, 2010) (affirming judgment for defendant)

Recent cases—Finding conspiracy
 

 

 

Reference Materials

Significant conspiracy precedents

± Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) (± Oyez)

± Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (± Oyez)

± Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (± Oyez)

± United States v. Container Corp. of Am., 393 U.S. 333 (1969) (± Oyez) (price signaling)

± Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 346 U.S. 537 (1954) (± Oyez) (parallel conduct)

± Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939)

± United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)

Explicit agreement—Examples

± Sugar Institute v. United States, 297 U.S. 553 (1936)

± David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, The Sugar Institute Learns to Organize its Information Exchange, in Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries 103 (Naomi R. Lamoreaux, Daniel M. G. Raff & Peter Temin eds. 1999)

± United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940)

United States v. Beaver, No. 07-1381 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008) (affirming conviction) (reported at 515 F.3d 730)

Toledo Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., No. 07-1811(3d Cir. June 17, 2008) (reported at 530 F.3d 204)

Tacit agreement—Examples

± United States v. Container Corp. of Am., 393 U.S. 333 (1969) (± Oyez), rev'g 273 F. Supp. 18 (M.D.N.C. 1967)

United States v. Airline Tariff Publ'g Co., 836 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1993)

Conscious parallelism

± Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 346 U.S. 537 (1954) (± Oyez)

± Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939)

± Blomkest Fertilizer, Inc. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc., 203 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999)

White v. R.M. Packer Co., No. 10-1130 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2011)

Proving conspiracy through circumstantial evidence

Detailed examinations of the evidence

TruePosition, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Tel. Co., Civ. A. No. 11-4574 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (reported at 844 F. Supp. 2d 571)

Reports

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Prosecuting Cartels Without Direct Evidence of Agreement (DAF/COMP/GF(2006)7, rev. Sept. 11, 2006)

Commentary

± Louis Kaplow, Direct Versus Communications-Based Prohibitions on Price Fixing (Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 703, July 21, 2011).

± Louis Kaplow, On the Meaning of Horizontal Agreements in Competition Law (Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 691, May 1, 2011).

"Plus factors"

± William E. Kovacic, Robert C. Marshall, Leslie M. Marx & Halbert L. White, Plus Factors and Agreement in Antitrust Law, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 393 (2011).

± Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., Posted Pricing as a Plus Factor, 7J. Competition L. & Econ. 1 (2011).

Economic evidence and the inference of conspiracy

± In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002)

± JTC Petroleum Co. v. Piasa Motor Fuels, Inc., 190 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 1999)

± Gregory J. Werden, Economic Evidence on the Existence of Collusion: Reconciling Antitrust Law with Oligopoly Theory, 71 Antitrust L.J. 719 (2004).

Individual coconspirator participation

Order Denying Cypress' Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-md-01819 CW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010)

Hub and spoke conspiracies

± Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939)

Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. FTC, No. 98-4107 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2000) (reported at 221 F.3d 928)

Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., Nos. 08-1693 & 08-1694 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2010) (reported at 602 F.3d 237)

In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litig., 11 MD 2293 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012) (see case studies)

Invitations and acceptance through public media

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Airline Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., Civ. A. No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB (N.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded May 24, 2012)

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Memorandum of Law In Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 8, 2010) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 8, 2010)

[Opposition briefs under seal]

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (May 17, 2010) (Exhibit 1) (Exhibit 2)
Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc.’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (May 17, 2010) (Exhibits A, B, C, D and E)

Order (August 2, 2010) (allowing plaintiffs' Section 1 claims to proceed and dismissing plaintiffs' Section 2 claims) (reported at 733 F. Supp. 2d 1348)

Answer of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Aug. 16, 2010)
Defendant Airtran’s Answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Aug. 16, 2010)

Unaccepted invitations to collude

± United States v. American Airlines, 743 F.2d 1114 (5th Cir. 1984), rev'g and remanding 570 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Tex. 1983)

Complaint, In re U-Haul Int'l, Inc., No. C-4294 (F.T.C. June 9, 2010) (Exhibit A)

Agreement Containing Consent Order (June 9, 2010)
Decision and Order (June 9, 2010) (Public Record Version)
Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment (June 9, 2010)
Statement of Chairman Leibowitz, Commissioner Kovacic, and Commissioner Rosch (June 9, 2010)
News Release (June 9, 2010)

± FTC web site

Follow-on private case: See Liu v. Amerco, 677 F.3d 489 (1st Cir. 2012) (alleging violation of state law)

Complaint, In re Valassis Commc'ns, No. C-4160 (F.T.C. filed Mar. 14, 2006) (Exhibit A)

Agreement Containing Consent Order (Mar. 14, 2006)
Initial Decision and Order (Mar. 14, 2006)
Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (Mar. 14, 2006)
New release (Mar. 14, 2006)

Final Decision and Order (Apr. 28, 2006)

± FTC web site

Complaint, In re Stone Container Corp., No. C-3806 (F.T.C. filed Feb. 25, 1998)

Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (Feb. 25, 1998)
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (Feb. 25, 1998)
Concurring Statement of Chairman Pitofsky, Commissioner Anthony, and Commissioner Thompson (Feb. 25, 1998)
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Swindle (Feb. 25, 1998)
News release (Feb. 25, 1998)

Final Decision and Order (June 3, 1998)
Concurring Statement of Chairman Pitofsky, Commissioner Anthony, and Commissioner Thompson (June 3, 1998)
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Azcuenaga (June 3, 1998)
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Swindle (June 3, 1998)
News Release (June 3, 1998)

± FTC web site

± See generally Paul S. Wallace, Jr., Attempt to Commit a Federal Crime: S. 171—A Proposed General Statute (Cong. Res. Serv. Rep. No. 98-554, June 16, 1998).

Facilitating practices generally

United States v. Airline Tariff Publ'g Co., 836 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1993).

± Joseph E., Harrington, Jr., A Theory of Tacit Collusion (Jan. 2012).

Paolo Buccirossi, Facilitating Practices, in Handbook of Antitrust Economics 305 (Paolo Buccirossi ed., 2008)

± William H. Page, Facilitating Practices and Concerted Action Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (May 2008)

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Roundtable on Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies (DAF/COMP(2008)24, Sept. 5, 2008).

± United States, Roundtable on Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies (OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2007)112, October 4, 2008)

Price signaling

± United States v. Container Corp. of Am., 393 U.S. 333 (1969) (± Oyez), rev'g 273 F. Supp. 18 (M.D.N.C. 1967)

Information exchanges

± Maple Flooring Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States, 268 U.S. 563 (1925)

± In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2004)

± In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999)

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law (DAF/COMP(2010)37, July 11, 2011).

Collusive "most favored nation" (MFN) clauses

± E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1984), vacating Ethyl Corp., 101 F.T.C. 425 (1983)

Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press Release, Attorney General Investigates Potentially Anticompetitive E-Book Deals with Amazon and Apple (Aug. 2, 2010) (Apple letter) (Amazon letter)

Withdrawal from conspiracy

Order Denying LG Display Co., Ltd.’s and LG Display America, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Withdrawal, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL. No. 1827 (N.D. Calif. September 26, 2011)

Order Denying LG Display Co., Ltd.'s and LG Display America, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Withdrawal, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL. No. 1827 (N.D. Calif. September 18, 2012)

Challenges to nonconcerted oligopolistic behavior under Section 5

± E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1984), vacating Ethyl Corp., 101 F.T.C. 425 (1983)

Administrative complaint (May 30, 1979)
Initial Decision (Aug. 5, 1981) (finding violation)
Final Decision (Mar. 22, 1983) (finding violation)

See ± Boise Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 637 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1980),

Case Studies

eBooks (DOJ 2012)
eBooks (States AGs 2012)
eBooks (private 2011)
High Tech Employees (2012)
U-Haul: Liu v. Aemerco (private 2010)
West Penn Allegheny Health System/UPMC (private 2009)
Iowa Ready-Mixed Concrete (private 2010)
Anderson News/American Media (private 2010)
Blood Reagents (private 2009)
Digital Music (private 2007)
Toys "R" Us (FTC 1996)

eBooks
(DOJ 2012)

Complaint, United States v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-2826 (S.D.N.Y. filed April 11, 2012) (news release)

Docket sheet (1:12-cv-02826) (downloaded Mar. 6, 2014)

Partial settlement by defendants Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster:

Stipulation (April 11, 2012)

[Proposed] Final Judgement as to Defendants Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster (April 11, 2012)

Competitive Impact Statement (April 11, 2012)

Stay Order (May 1, 2012) (staying case as to HarperCollins Publishers LL.C., Hachette Book Group, and Hachette Digital, Inc.)

Endorsed Letter (June 11, 2012) (excusing publication of the public comments in the Federal Register and instead allowing comments to be posted on the Antitrust Division website in conjunction with Federal Register publication of the internet address at which comments can be read and downloaded)

Letter to Judge Cote from Mark Ryan (DOJ) re response to Kohn letter (July 11, 2012)

± DOJ web page with links to all public comments

Detailed comments discussed in the U.S. response

ATC-0703 Apple, Inc.
ATC-0265 American Booksellers Association
ATC-0214 Authors Guild
ATC-0097 Barnes & Noble, Inc.
ATC-0775 Consumer Federation of America
ATC-0242 DeFiore, Brian
ATC-0125 Gaughran, David, et al.
ATC-0727 Independent Publishers
ATC-0143 Kohn, Bob
ATC-0144 Konrath, Joe
ATC-0228 American Specialty Toy Retailing Association
ATC-0845 National Association of College Stores
ATC-0374 Steerads, Inc.

Response of Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (July 23, 2012)

± DOJ web site (containing comments on proposed settlement)

Motion of American Booksellers Association and Barnes & Noble, Inc. for Leave to File Amici Curiae Responses to the U.S. Department of Justice Tunney Act Filings (July 31, 2012)

Declaration of David N. Wynn in Support of Motion of American Booksellers Association and Barnes & Noble, Inc. for Leave to File Amici Curiae Responses to the U.S. Department of Justice Tunney Act Filings (July 31, 2012)

Memorandum Opinion & Order (Aug. 6, 2012)

Plaintiff United States of America’s Notice of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 3, 2012)

Declaration of Stephanie A. Fleming in Support of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 3, 2012)

Exhibit 1: Certificate of Compliance with Provisions of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
Exhibit 2: {Proposed] Final Judgment as to Defendants Hachette, Harpercollins,and Simon & Schuster

Memorandum in Support of the United States’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 3, 2012)

Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the United States’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Against Defendants Hachette Book Group, Inc., Harpercollins Publishers, L.L.C., and Simon & Schuster, Inc. (Aug. 15, 2012)

Penguin’s Observations with Respect to the Government’s Response to Public Comments and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 15, 2012)

Opposition of Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan to the Plaintiff United States of America's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 15, 2012)

Reply Memorandum in Support of the United States’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 22, 2012)

Declaration of Karry Lu in Support of the United States’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Aug. 22, 2012) (Exhibit 1) (Exhibit 2)

Motion of Bob Kohn for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae (Aug. 13, 2012)

Memorandom in Support of Motion of Bob Kohn for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae (Aug. 13, 2012)

[Proposed] Brief of Bob Kohn* as Amicus Curiae (Aug. 13, 2012) (rejected by the court)

Order (28, 2012) (granting motion to file and accepting amicus brief from the Authors Guild, and granting motion to file, rejecting Kohn's amicus brief as too long, and granting leave to five a brief not to exceed five pages).

Brief of Bob Kohn as Amicus Curiae (Sept. 4, 2012)

Supplemental Reply Memorandum in Support of the United States’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Sept. 5, 2012) (addressing the amicus submissions of the Authors Guild and Mr. Bob Kohn)

Letter to Judge Cote from Simon Lipskar re comments on proposed consent decree (Sept. 5, 2012)

Opinion and Order (Sept. 6, 2012) (approving settlement)

Final Judgment (Sept. 6, 2012)

Motion by Bob Kohn for Leave to Intervene for Sole Purpose of Appeal (Sept. 7, 2012)

Memorandom of [sic] in Support of Motion by Bob Kohn for Leave to Intervene for the Sole Purpose of Appeal (Sept. 7, 2012)

Bob Kohn’s Motion to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal (Sept. 7, 2012)

Memorandum in Support of Bob Kohn’s Motion to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal (Sept. 7, 2012)

Opposition of the United States to Motion by Bob Kohn for Leave to Intervene (Sept. 17, 2012)

Settling Publishers' Memorandum of Law in Opposition the Motion by Bob Kohn for Leave to Intervene for Sole Purpose of Appeal (Sept. 17, 2012)

Memorandum of Law in Reply to Opposition of the United States to Motion by Bob Kohn for Leave to Intervene for the Sole Purpose of Appeal (Sept. 21, 2012)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Oct. 2, 2012) (denying Kohn's motion to intervene)

Notice of Appeal (Oct. 2, 2012)

Second Circuit

Motion of the United States to Dismiss Appeal (Nov. 13, 2011)

Kohn’s Response Requesting Denial of United States’s Motion to Dismiss Kohn’s Appeal of the Order Denying His Motion to Intervene (Nov. 26, 2011)

Reply of the United States in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Dec. 3, 2012)

 

Stipulated Protective Order (May 9, 2012)

Apple Inc.'s Answer (May 22, 2012)

The Penguin Group Answer (May 29, 2012)

Answer of Defendant Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC D/B/A MacMillan to the Complaint (May 29, 2012)

Joint Initial Report (June 15, 2012) (status report on all cases)

Exhibit 1: Exhibit Proposed Schedules
Exhibit 2: Exhibit Parties' Current Disputes
Exhibit 3: Exhibit Joint ESI Submission

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Daniel Floyd dated 6/19/2012 re: Apple's position on the remaining disputes among the parties re joint initial report (entered June 20, 2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Steve W Berman dated 6/20/2012 re: Disputes to the Joint Initial Report, filed by Class Plaintiffs. Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC, 1:12-cv-03394-DLC(cd) (entered 06/21/2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Joel M Mitnick dated 6/20/2012 re: Remaining Disputes and the Joint Initial Report. Document filed by Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GMBH.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC, 1:12-cv-03394-DLC(cd) (entered June 21, 2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Gabriel R Gervey and W. Joseph Nielsen dated 6/20/2012 re: Plaintiff States request that the Court adopt the Plaintiffs' proposed schedule. Document filed by Plaintiff States.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC, 1:12-cv-03394-DLC(cd) (entered 06/21/2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Mark W Ryan dated 6/20/2012 re: Discovery should proceed without delay and the resolution of the United States' claims need not be combined with trials in the other set of cases. Document filed by Unites States of America. Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC(cd) (entered: 06/21/2012)

Joint Initial Report—Revised July 6, 2012

Scheduling order (June 25, 2012) (all cases)

Letter to Judge Cote from Shepard Goldfein on behalf of settling defendants (June 25, 2012)

Letter to Judge Cote from State AGs (June 26, 2012) (informing court that Plaintiff States are amenable to a bench trial before the Court on issues of liability and injunctive relief in should that trial proceed concurrently with the trial in the DOJ case and reserving right to a jury trial on damages-related issues after the Court makes a determination on liability)

Partial settlement as to The Penguin Group

[Proposed] Final Judgment as to Defendants The Penguin Group, a Division of Pearson PLC, and Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (Dec. 18, 2012) (news releasse)

Stpulation (Dec. 18, 2012)
Competitive Impact Statement (Dec. 18, 2012)

± DOJ comment page (with links to the three public comments)

Response by Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment as to the Penguin Defendants (Apr. 5, 2013).

Notice of Motion by the United States for Entry of the Proposed Penguin Final Judgment (April 18, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Motion by the United States for Entry of the Proposed Penguin Final Judgment (April 18, 2013)

Motion of Amicus Curiae Bob Kohn for Leave to File a 5-Page Amicus Curiae Brief Solely to Reply To Government’s Response to Public Comments to the Proposed Final Judgment with the Penguin Defendants (April 30, 2013)

Memorandom in Support of Motion of Amicus Curiae Bob Kohn to Submit a 5-Page Brief Amicus Curiae Solely to Reply to Government’S Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment with the Penguin Defendants (April 30, 2013)

Exhibit: Brief of Amicus Curiae Bob Kohn in Reply to The Government’s Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment with the Penguin Defendants (April 30, 2013)

Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion by the United States for Entry of the Proposed Penguin Final Judgment (May 10, 2013)

Order (May 17, 2013) (granting Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b)).

Final Judgment as to Defendants The Penguin Group, a Division of Pearson PLC, and Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (May 17, 2013)

Partial settlement as to Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC (dba Macmillan)

[Proposed] Final Judgment as to Defendants Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH & Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan (Feb. 8, 2013)

Stipulation (Feb. 8, 2013)
Competitive Impact Statement (Feb. 8, 2013)

Exhibit A: Redline to Original Judgment (Feb. 8, 2013)
Exhibit B: Redline to Proposed Penguin Final Judgment (Feb. 8, 2013)

Response by Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment as to the Macmillan Defendants (May 24, 2013)

Final Judgmentas to Defendants Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GMBH & Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan (August 12, 2013)

Motions in Limine

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Michelle Burtis from Offering at Trial Any Opinion on Competitive Effects (April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Michelle Burtis from Offering at Trial Any Opinion on Competitive Effects (May 3, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Michelle Burtis from Offering at Trial Any Opinion on Competitive Effects (May 8, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Kevin Murphy from Offering at Trial Testimony on His Opinions #1-#3 (April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Professor Kevin M. Murphy from Offering at Trial Testimony on His Opinions 1 to 3 (May 3, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Kevin Murphy from Offering at Trial Testimony on His Opinions #1-#3 (May 8, 2013).

Apple Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Expert Testimony of Professor Richard Gilbert (April 26, 2013)

United States’ Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Expert Testimony of Professor Richard Gilbert (May 3, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Reply in Support of its Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Expert Testimony of Professor Richard Gilbert (May 8, 2013)

 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Anticipated Testimony Regarding the “Appropriateness” of Communications (May 3, 2013)

Trial

Plaintiffs' Pretrial Memorandum of Law (April 26, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Pre-Trial Memorandum of Law (May 3, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Pre-Trial Memorandum of Law (April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Proposed Findings of Fact (April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.'s Proposed Conclusions of Law (April 26, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Apple’s Pretrial Memorandum of Law (May 3, 2013)

[Proposed] Joint Pretrial Order (April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Pre-Trial Memorandum of Law (May 16, 2003 unredacted; original redacted version filed April 26, 2013)

Apple Inc.’s Proposed Findings of Fact (May 16, 2013 unredacted; original redacted version filed April 26, 2013)

Order (May 24, 2013) (deciding motions in limine and limiting each side to 29 hours to present its case at trial, excluding summation) (summation to be on June 20, 2013).

United States’ Post-Trial Memorandum (June 20, 2013) (slides)

Apple Inc.’s Post-Trial Memorandum (June 20, 2013) (slides)

Opinion and order

Opinion and Order (July 10, 2013) (finding Apple liable for conspiracy)

Relief

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Injunction (Aug. 2, 2013)

Exhibit 1: Proposed Final Judgment
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3: Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft Corp.
Exhibit 4: Deposition transcript of Kevin Saul

Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Response to Plaintiff United States’ Proposed Final Judgment and Plaintiff States’ Proposed Order Entering Permanent Injunction (August 2, 2013)

Settling Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff United States' Proposed Final Judgment and Plaintiff States' Proposed Order Entering Permanent Injunction (August. 7, 2013)

Letter to Judge Cote from Larry Buterman (DOJ) re settling defendants' opposition (August 8, 2013)

Scheduling Order (August 13, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Revised Proposed Injunction (August 23, 2013)

Letter to Judge Cote from Apple re proposed scope of injunction (August 26, 2013)

Exhibit A: [Proposed Form of] Final Judgment and [Proposed Form of] Order Entering Permanent Injunction
Exhibit B: Letter to Lawrence E. Buterman (DOJ) from Orin Snyder (Gibson Dunn) re Apple antitrust compliance practices (August 19, 2013)

Transcript of argument on injunctive relief (August 27, 2013)

Plaintiff United States' Final Judgment and Plaintiff States' Order Entering Permanent Injunction (September 5, 2013)

Notice of appeal

Notice of Appeal (October 3, 2013) (Apple)

Notice of Appeal (October 3, 2013) (Simon & Schuster)

Second Circuit appeal on the merits

Docket sheet (No. 13-3741) (downloaded Mar. 6, 2014)

Emergency Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal (Jan. 17, 2014) (duplicates motion in No. 14-60—see below)

Page Proof Brief for Defendants-Appellants Simon & Schuster, Inc. and Simon & Schuster Digital Sales, Inc. (Feb. 7, 2014)

[Page Proof] Brief for Defendants-Appellants Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck Gmbh, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, d/b/a Macmillan (Feb. 7, 2014)

Brief for Amicus Curiae Bob Kohn in Support of Defendants-Appellants Macmillan and Simon & Schuster for Reversal of Improper Modification of Tunney Act Consent Decrees (Feb. 14, 2014)

Appellant Apple Inc.’s Opening Brief (Page Proof) (Feb. 25, 2014)

Brief of Economists as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Apple and Urging Reversal (Mar. 4, 2014)

 

± DOJ web site

Commentary

± John B. Kirkwood, Collusion to Control a Powerful Customer: Amazon, E-Books, and Antitrust Policy (Feb. 14, 2014)
± Wall Street Journal Editorial, Apple's Star Chamber, Wall St. J., Dec. 5, 2013
± Roger Parloff, Behind Apple's mutiny against its court-ordered e-books monitor, Fortune.com, Dec. 2, 2013
± Joseph Ax, Prominent attorney named as monitor in Apple e-books case, UK.Reuters.com, October 16, 2013
± Christopher Matthews, Should Justice Drop the Apple Ebook Lawsuit?, Time.com (July 23, 2012)
± Sen. Charles Schummer, Memo to DOJ: Drop the Apple E-Books Suit, WSJ.com (July 17, 2012)
± Brad Stone & Felix Gillette, The DOJ's Publishing Lawsuit May Doom Digital Rights Management.Bloomberg BusinessWeek.com (Apr. 18, 2012)
± Geoffrey Manne, How Apple Can Defeat The DOJ's E-Book Antitrust Suit, Forbes.com (Apr. 12, 2012)

eBooks monitor dispute

Order (September 27, 2013) (re procedures for recommending persons to be appointed as Monitor)

Order (October 16, 2013) (appointing Michael R. Bromwich as Monitor)

Order (Nov. 21, 2013)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Objections to the Court’s Order Filed on Nov. 21, 2013 (Nov. 27, 2013)

Exhibit A: Letter to Michael R. Bromwich (Monitor) from Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (Gibson Dunn) re External Antitrust Compliance Monitoring (October 31, 2013)
Exhibit B: Email exchanges re scheduling interviews
Exhibit C: Email exchanges re scheduling interviews
Exhibit D: Email to Michael R. Bromwich from Kyle Andeer ( Apple Legal, Senior Director, Competition Law & Policy/Commercial & Retail Law) (October 17, 2013)
Exhibit E: Email to Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (Gibson Dunn) from Michael R. Bromwich re scheduling (Nov. 11, 2013)
Exhibit F: Email exchange re Apple interviews
Exhibit G: Email exchange re Apple interviews
Exhibit H: Email exchange re Apple interviews
Exhibit I: Letter to Michael R. Bromwich from Matthew J. Reilly re External Antitrust Compliance Monitoring (Nov. 27, 2013)
Exhibit J: Letter to the Apple Board of Directors from Michael R. Bromwich (Nov. 22, 2013)
Exhibit K: Email exchnage re confidentiality protections and scheduling
Exhibit L: Letter to D. Bruce Sewell, General Counsel, Apple Inc., from Michael R. Bromwich (Nov. 5, 2013)
Exhibit M: Letter to Tim Cook, CEO, Apple Inc., and D. Bruce Sewell, General Counsel, Apple Inc., from Michael R. Bromwich (Nov. 1, 2013)
Exhibit N: Letter to Noreen Krall, Chief Litigation Counsel, Apple Inc., from Michael R. Bromwich (Nov. 22, 2013)
Exhibit P: Email to Michael R. Bromwich from Noreen Krall, Chief Litigation Counsel, Apple Inc. (Nov. 25, 2013)

Order (Dec. 2, 2013) (reponding to Apple's Objections)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion by Order to Show Cause for a Stay of the Injunction Pending Appeal (Dec. 12, 2013; docketed Dec. 14, 2013)

Letter to Judge Cote from Lawrence E. Buterman (DOJ) in response to motion (Dec. 13, 2013)

Order (Dec. 13, 2013) (clarifying order and setting deadlines for responses to Apple's motion)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Motion to Show Cause for a Stay of the Injunction Pending Appeal (Dec. 30, 2013)

Letter to Judge Cote from Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. (Apple's counsel) (Jan. 7, 2014)

Reply in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion by Order To Show Cause for a Stay of the Injunction Pending Appeal (Jan. 7, 2014)

Letter to Judge Cote from Lawrence E. Buterman (DOJ) (Jan. 8, 2014) (asking court to strike Apple reply memorandum for failure to comply with individual rules)

Endorsed letter (Jan. 8, 2014) (denying Apple's request to strike but permitting surreply)

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply in Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Motion to Show Cause for a Stay of the Injunction Pending Appeal (Jan. 10, 2014)

Supplemental Declaration of Michael R. Bromwich (Jan. 10, 2014)

Opinion and Order (Jan. 16, 2014)

Second Circuit appeal on monitor dispute

Docket sheet (No. 14-0060) (downloaded February 3, 2014)

Notice of Appeal (Jan. 17, 2014)

Motion for Emergency Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal (Jan. 17, 2014)

Emergency Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal (Jan. 17, 2014)

Order (Jan. 21, 2014) (granting administrative stay)

Opposition of Plaintiffs-Appellees To Apple’s Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (Jan. 24, 2014)

Brief of Amicus Curiae David M. Dorsen in Support of Apple Inc. and Reversal (Jan. 29, 2014)

Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal (Jan. 31, 2014)

Reply Declaration of Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.

Order (Feb. 10, 2014) (denying Apple's motion for a stay)

Monitor dispute on remand

Letter to Judge Cote from Michael Bromwich (Feb. 18, 2014)

Order (Feb. 19, 2014)

Order of Reference to a Magistrate Judge (Feb. 19, 2014)

Letter to Judge Cote from Theodore J. Boutros (for Apple) (Feb. 20, 2014)

Order (Feb. 20, 2014)

Report of the External Compliance Monitor (Apr. 14, 2014)

eBooks
(State AGs 2012)

W.D. Tex.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties & As Parens Patriae on Behalf of Consumers, Texas v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., No. A12-CV-0324LY (W.D. Tex. filed Apr. 11, 2012)

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties & as Parens Patriae on Behalf of Consumers, Texas v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., No. A12-CV-0324LY (W.D. Tex. filed Apr. 18, 2012)

MDL Panel

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-3), In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2293 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 24, 2012) (transferring State AGs action to SDNY for pretrial coordination)

SDNY (MDL pretrial coordination)

SDNY docket sheet (No. 1:12-cv-03394-DLC) (downloaded Mar. 18, 2014)

Standing Order (Apr. 30, 2012) (designating case for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York)

Stipulated Protective Order (May 9, 2012)

Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (May 11, 2012)

Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (May 11, 2012)

Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penal Ties & As Parens Patriae on Behalf of Consumers, Texas v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., No. 12-cv-03394 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2012), filed as part of In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litig., 11 MD 2293 (DLC).

Joint Initial Report (June 15, 2012) (status report on all cases)

Exhibit 1: Exhibit Proposed Schedules
Exhibit 2: Exhibit Parties' Current Disputes
Exhibit 3: Exhibit Joint ESI Submission

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Daniel Floyd dated 6/19/2012 re: Apple's position on the remaining disputes among the parties re joint initial report (entered June 20, 2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Steve W Berman dated 6/20/2012 re: Disputes to the Joint Initial Report, filed by Class Plaintiffs. Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC, 1:12-cv-03394-DLC(cd) (entered 06/21/2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Joel M Mitnick dated 6/20/2012 re: Remaining Disputes and the Joint Initial Report. Document filed by Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GMBH.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC, 1:12-cv-03394-DLC(cd) (entered June 21, 2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Gabriel R Gervey and W. Joseph Nielsen dated 6/20/2012 re: Plaintiff States request that the Court adopt the Plaintiffs' proposed schedule. Document filed by Plaintiff States.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC, 1:12-cv-03394-DLC(cd) (entered 06/21/2012)

Letter addressed to Judge Denise L Cote from Mark W Ryan dated 6/20/2012 re: Discovery should proceed without delay and the resolution of the United States' claims need not be combined with trials in the other set of cases. Document filed by Unites States of America. Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02293-DLC, 1:12-cv-02826-DLC(cd) (entered: 06/21/2012)

Joint Initial Report—Revised July 6, 2012

Scheduling Order (June 25, 2012) (all cases)

Letter to Judge Cote from State AGs (June 26, 2012) (informing court that Plaintiff States are amenable to a bench trial before the Court on issues of liability and injunctive relief in should that trial proceed concurrently with the trial in the DOJ case and reserving right to a jury trial on damages-related issues after the Court makes a determination on liability)

Joint Initial Report—Revised July 6, 2012

Order (Sept. 10, 2012) (informing parties that the Court waives any interest it might have as a purchaser of ebooks in the parens patriae lawsuits)

Partial settlement—Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Simon & Schuster, Inc., and Simon & Schuster Digital Sales, Inc.

Complaint, Texas v. Hachette Book Group, Inc., No. 12-civ-6625 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 29, 2012) (against settling defendants Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Simon & Schuster, Inc., and Simon & Schuster Digital Sales, Inc.)

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff States' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlements and Proposed Consumer Notice and Distribution Plans (Aug. 29, 2012)

Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlements (Sept. 13, 2012)

Letter to the Court from Steve Berman (interim class counsel in private action) re consideration in preliminarily approving the state AG settlement (Sept. 13, 2012)

Plaintiff States' Status Update Regarding Settlement Notice and Dlistllubutlion Plans (Oct. 2, 2012)

Exhibit 1: Plaintiff States’ Proposed Consumer Distribution Plan
Exhibit 2: Notice Plan

Order and Stipulated Injunction (Feb. 8, 2013)

Final Judgment (Feb. 8, 2013)

Pretrial (on damages claims)

Notice of Penguin Group (USA), Inc.’s Motion for a Jury Trial on the Plaintiff States’ Claims (Mar. 15, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Penguin Group (USA), Inc.’s Motion for a Jury Trial on the Plaintiff States’ Claims (Mar. 15, 2013)

Plaintiff States’ Memorandum in Opposition to Penguin Group (USA), Inc.’s Motion for a Jury Trial on the Plaintiff States’ Claims (Mar. 15, 2013)

Reply in Support of Penguin Group (USA), Inc.’s Motion for a Jury Trial on the Plaintiff States’ Claims (April 5, 2013)

Opinion & Order (April 24, 2013) (denying motionfor jury trial)

Plaintiff States’ Supplemental Memorandum of Law (May 14, 2013) (pretrial memorandum)

Plaintiff States’ Supplemental Memorandum of Law on State Law Claims (May 14, 2013)

Pretrial Memorandum of Law in Support of Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (May 14, 2013)

Penguin Group (USA) Inc.'s Combined Proposed Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law (May 14, 2013)

Plaintiff States' Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Certain State Law Claims (May 28, 2013)

Order Granting Plaintiff States' Motion To Voluntarily Dismiss Certain State Law Claims (May 28, 2013)

Partial settlement—Macmillan and Penguin

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Macmillan and Penguin Settlements and Proposed Notice and Distribution Plans (June 21, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Macmillan and Penguin Settlements and Proposed Consumer Notice and Distribution Plans (June 21, 2013)

Exhibit A: Macmillan Settlement Agreement
Exhibit B: Penguin Settlement Agreement
Exhibit C: Dr. Wickelgren Declaration
[Other exhibits not included]

Order Preliminarily Approving Macmillan and Penguin Settlements (August 6, 2013)

Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Macmillan and Penguin Settlements and Distribution Plan (Nov. 21, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Macmillan and Penguin Settlements and Distribution Plan (Nov. 21, 2013)

Trial (on injunctive relief claims—consolidated with DOJ case)

Opinion and Order (July 10, 2013) (finding Apple liable for conspiracy)

Plaintiff United States' Final Judgment and Plaintiff States' Order Entering Permanent Injunction (Sept. 5, 2013)

Pretrial (on damages) (continued)

Letter to Judge Cote from Plaintiff States re civil penalties under state law (September 20, 2013)

Exhibit 1: State Civil Penalty Statutes
Exhibit 2: Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff States' Supplemental Memorandum of Law on State Law Claims

Order (September 25, 2013)

Trial (on injunctive relief)

Post-trial (on injunctive relief)

Plaintiff States’ Brief on Civil Penalties (Jan. 8, 2014)

Apple Inc.'s Brief Regarding State Civil Penalties (Feb. 10, 2014)

Plaintiff States' Reply Brief on Civil Penalties (Mar. 7, 2014) (Exhibit 1)

eBooks
(private 2011)

Initial complaints

Complaint, Petru v. Apple Inc., No. 11-3892 (N.D. Cal. filed August 9, 2011)

Complaint, Grover v. MacMillan, No. 11-cv-5576 (S.D.N.Y. filed August 10, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)

Proposed Intervenor Anthony Petru’s Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer or, in the Alternative, Stay Action (August 24, 2011)

Proposed Intervenor Anthony Petru’s Memorandum Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer or, in the Alternative, Stay Action (August 24, 2011)

Complaint, Burstein v. Hachette Book Group, Inc., No. 11-cv-5621 (S.D.N.Y. filed August 12, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded May 21, 2012)

MDL:

Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litig., 11 MD 2293 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 20, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 18, 2014)

First amended consolidated Class Action Complaint (October 23, 2013)

Transfer Order, In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2293 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 9, 2012)

Standing Order In re Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York (Dec. 9, 2012)

Order (Dec. 20, 2012) (waiving any interest the court might have in the putative class action lawsuit)

Case Management Order (Dec. 21, 2012) (among other things redesignating case caption as In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, 11 MD 2293 (DLC))

Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Jan. 20, 2012)

Notice of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 2, 2012)

Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 2, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Mar. 30, 2012)

Notice of Supplemental Authority (Apr. 5, 2012)

Apple Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Apr. 13, 2012)

Opinion and Order (May 15, 2012)

Publisher Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 2, 2012)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Publisher Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 2, 2012)

Plaintiffs' Consolidated Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Mar. 30, 2012)

Notice of Supplemental Authority (Apr. 5, 2012)

MacMillan, Penguin, and Simon & Schuster's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Publisher Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Apr. 13, 2012)

Opinion and Order (May 15, 2012)

Stay Order (May 1, 2012) (staying case with respect to settling defendants HarperCollins Publishers, Hachette Book Group, Inc., and Hachette Digital Inc.)

Stipulated Protective Order (May 9, 2012)

Scheduling Order (June 25, 2012) (all cases)

Opinion & Order (June 27, 2012) (denying Penguin's motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration)

Notice of appeal (July 6, 2012)

Joint Initial Report - Revised July 6, 2012 (July 6, 2012)

Attachment A: Schedule
Attachment B: Joint Electronic Discovery Submission No. 1 And [Proposed! Order-Revised July 6, 2012

Hachette’s Answer to Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (September 14, 2012)
Answer of Defendant HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. to Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (September 14, 2013)
Simon & Schuster, Inc.’s and Simon & Schuster Digital Sales, Inc.’s Answer to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (September 14, 2012)

Partial settlement—Harper Collins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster Settlements and Proposed Notice and Distribution Plans (June 21, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster Settlements (June 21, 2013)

Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement

Order Preliminarily Approving Class Plaintiffs' Settlements with Harper Collins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster (August 5, 2013)

Class Counsel’s Notice of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Participation Awards for Named Plaintiffs (October 8, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Participation Awards for Named Plaintiffs (October 8, 2013)

Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster Settlements and Distribution Plan (Nov. 26, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Settlement Class’s Motion for Final Approval of HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster Settlements (Nov. 26, 2013)

Defendants Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster's Motion for and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Plaintiffs' Settlement (Nov. 26, 2013)

Order Granting Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (Dec. 9, 2013)

Class certification

Class Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (October 11, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (October 11, 2013)

Declaration of Roger G. Noll

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 15, 2013)

Corrected Declaration of Jonathan Orszag (Nov. 25, 2013)

Declaration of Joseph P. Kalt, Ph.D. (Nov. 15, 2013) (on damages)

Class Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Dec. 18, 2013; redacted version filed Feb. 24, 2014)

Opinion & Order (Mar. 28, 2014) (granting motion to certify class and denying apple's motion to exclude Noll testimony)

Apple's motion to exclude Noll opinions

Notice of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Roger Noll in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 15, 2013)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Roger Noll in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 15, 2013)

Plaintiff States' Response to Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Roger Noll (Dec.. 18, 2013)

Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Apple's Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Roger G. Noll in support of Motion for Class Certification (Dec. 18, 2013; redacted version Feb. 24, 2014)

Reply in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Roger Noll in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Jan. 21, 2014)

Noll rebuttal expert report (Dec. 18, 2013) (not filed as part of the record)

Letter to Judge Cote from Daniel G. Swanson (Apple's counsel) re Noll Dec. 18, 2013 report (Dec. 23, 2013) (requesting opportunity to redepose and submit surreply)
Letter to Judge Cote from Steve W. Berman (class counsel) re Noll Dec. 18, 2013 report (Dec. 24, 2013)
Letter to Judge Cote from Robert Hubbard (states) re Noll Dec. 18, 2013 report (Dec. 24, 2013)
Order (Dec. 27, 2013) (denying Apple's request to redepose Noll but allowing a surreply on new opinions)

Reply Declaration of Roger G. Noll (Feb. 24, 2014)

Motions to exclude Orszag opinions

Class Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions Contained in the Declaration of Jonathan Orszag (Dec. 18, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions Offered by Apple's Expert Jonathan Orszag (Dec. 18, 2013; redacted version Feb. 24, 2014)

Notice of Plaintiff States' Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Jonathan Orszag (Dec. 18, 2013)

Plaintiff States' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Jonathan Orszag (Dec. 18, 2013; redacted version filed Jan. 15, 2014)
Plaintiff States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Jonathan Orszag (redacted version filed Feb. 12, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Consolidated Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Class Plaintiffs’ And Plaintiff States’ Motions To Exclude Expert Opinions Offered By Jonathan Orszag (redacted version filed Feb. 11, 2014)

Sur-Reply Declaration of Jonathan Orszag in Response to Reply Declaration of Roger G. Noll and in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.fs Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Class Plaintiffsf and Plaintiff Statesf Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions Offered by Jonathan Orszag (Jan. 21, 2013; redacted version filed Feb. 11, 2014)

Motions to exclude Kalt opinions

Class Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions Contained in the Declaration of Joseph P. Kalt (Dec. 18, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Joseph Kalt (Dec. 18, 2013; redacted version Feb. 24, 2014)

Plaintiff States' Response to Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Joseph P. Kalt (Dec. 18, 2013)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Class Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions Offered by Dr. Joseph Kalt (redacted version filed Feb. 11, 2014)

Sur-Reply Declaration in Response to Reply Declaration of Roger G. Noll and in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Class Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions Offered by Dr. Joseph Kalt (Jan. 21, 2014; redacted version filed Feb. 11, 2014)

Plaintiff States' Response to Class Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Class Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Opinions Offered by Dr. Joseph P. Kalt (Feb. 4, 2014)

Opinion & Order (Mar. 28, 2014) (granting motion to certify class)
Opinion & Order (Mar. 28, 2014) (granting plaintiffs' motion to exclude Kalt and granting in part motion to exclude Orszag)

 

Class plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment

Class Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 3, 2014)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 3, 2014)

Class Plaintifffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts (Feb. 3, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Mar. 5, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.'s Response to Class Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts (Mar. 5, 2014)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Mar. 7, 2014)

Class Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Statement of Undisputed Facts (Mar. 7, 2014)

 

Apple's motion to remand to the MDL Panel

Apple Inc.'s Motion for Suggestion of Remand to the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (Feb. 21, 2014)

Class Plaintiffs' Opposition to Apple Inc.'s motion for Suggestion of Remand to Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (Mar. 7, 2014)

Apple Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion for Suggstion of Remand to the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (Mar. 14, 2014)


 

Commentary:

± Steven Pearlstein, Pick your monopoly: Apple or Amazon, WashingtonPost.com, March 10, 2012.

± Letter from Scott Turow, President, The Authors' Guild (Mar. 9, 2012).

High Tech Employees
(private 2011)

State court complaint:

Complaint for Violations of: (1) the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code Sections 16720, Et Seq.); (2) Business and Professions Code Section 16600; and (3) the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, Et Seq.), Hariharan v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. RG11574066 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cty. filed May 4, 2011) (alleging that defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with respect to the compensation of the plaintiff employees)

Removal to federal court:

Docket sheet (Case No. 5:11-cv-02509) (downloaded March 25, 2014)

Joint Notice of Removal of Action from State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, 1446 & 1453 (May 23, 2011)

Declination to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge (May 27, 2011) (filed by plaintiff Hariharan)

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (July 19, 2011) (filed by defendants)

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (July 20, 2011)

Related Case Order (July 27, 2011) (granting motion to relate cases)

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Administrative Motion to Transfer Actions to the San Jose Division (August 2, 2011)

Order (August 4, 2011) (transferring cases to the San Jose Division)

Stipulated Pretrial Order As Modified No. 1 (September 12, 2011)

Complaint

Consolidated Amended Complaint, In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-2509-LHK (N.D. Cal. filed September 13, 2011)

Motion to dismiss complaint

Defendants' Notice of Motion, Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) & 12(B)(6)] (October 13, 2011) (declaration)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 4, 2011)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Dec. 2, 2011)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss; Denying Lucasfilm Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 18, 2012)

Administrative matters

Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1 (October 13, 2011) (over staying discovery pending decision on motion to dismiss)

Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Jan. 1, 2012) (interesting play by plaintiffs to put facts before the court while decision on motion to dismiss is pending)

Stipulation and Order Concerning Testifying Expert Discovery (Jan. 23, 2012)

Stipulated Protective Order (Jan. 24, 2012) (as modified by the court)

Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Jan. 27, 2012)

Motions for class certification

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification, and Memorandum of Law in Support (Oct. 1, 2012)

Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Oct. 1, 2012)

Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 12, 2012)

Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy (redacted version Nov. 14, 2012)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (Nov. 12, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (Dec. 10, 2012)

Reply Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Dec. 10, 2012)

Order Granting in Part, Denying in Part Motion for Class Certification (Apr. 5, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion and Brief in Support of Class Certification (May 10, 2013)

Defendants’ Opposition to Supplemental Class Certification Motion (June 21, 2013)

Supplemental Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy (June 21, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Supplemental Class Certification Motion (July 12, 2013)

Rebuttal Supplemental Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (July 12, 2013)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Class Certification ()ct. 24, 2013)

Motions for summary judgment

Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D.; Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support Thereof
(Jan. 9, 2014)

Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Testimony in Dr. Leamer’s Reply Expert Report or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Submit a Reply Report of Dr. Stiroh; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Joint Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D., and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 10, 2014)

Defendant Adobe’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 9, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014)

Defendant Google Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014)

Notice of Motion and Motion by Intel Corporation for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 56 (Jan. 9, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Defendants’ Joint and Individual Motions for Summary Judgment (Feb. 6, 2014)

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Feb. 6, 2014)

Opposition to Motion to Strike Reply Report of Edward Leamer, Ph.D. (Feb. 6, 2014)

Intel’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56 (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendant Google Inc’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Individual Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendant Adobe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Joint Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Testimony in Dr. Leamer’s Reply Expert Report or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Submit a Reply Report of Dr. Stiroh (Feb. 27, 2014)

 

Prior DOJ action

Complaint, United States v. Adobe Sys., Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-01629 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 24, 2010) (news release)
Stipulation (September 24, 2010)
[Proposed] Final Order (September 24, 2010)
Competitive Impact Statement (September 24, 2010)
Plaintiff United States' Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures (September 24, 2010)

Final Judgment (March 18, 2011)

± DOJ web page

U-Haul: Liu v. Aemerco
(private 2010)

Class Action Complaint, Liu v. Amerco, 10-11221 (D. Mass. filed July 21, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 28, 2014)

Amerco’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Sept. 17, 2010)

Defendant Amerco’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Sept. 17, 2010)

Response to Amerco’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Oct. 22, 2010)

Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Sept. 17, 2010)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Sept. 17, 2010)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Oct. 22, 2010)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Nov. 5, 2010)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Leave to File Granted on November 22, 2010] (Nov. 22, 2010)

Order (Aug. 22, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss)

Notice of Appeal (Sept. 13, 2011)

First Circuit

Docket sheet (No. 11-2053) (downloaded Jan. 28, 2014)

Initial Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant (Nov. 2, 2011)

Appellee's Brief (Dec.. 6, 2011)

Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant (Nov. 17, 2012)

Opinion (May 4, 2012) (reported as 677 F.3d 489)

Judgment (May 4, 2012)

Mandate (May 29, 2012)

West Penn Allegheny Health System/UPMC
(private 2009)

District court

Memorandum Opinion, West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, No. 09cv0480 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2009)

W.D. Pa. docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 28, 2012)

Amended Complaint (August 28, 2009)

Appeal to the Third Circuit

Opinion, West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, No. 09-4468 (3d Cir. Nov. 11, 2010) (reported as 627 F.3d 85) (reversing dismissal of complaint and remanding)

Third Circuit Docket sheet (downloaded March 4, 2012)

Brief of Appellant West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. (Jan. 26, 2010)

Brief of Defendant-Appellee UPMC (Mar. 1, 2010)

Brief of Appellee Highmark Inc. (Mar. 1, 2010)

Reply Brief of Appellant West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. (Mar. 18, 2010)

On remand

Docket sheet

Order (February 3, 2012) (consolidating cases for discovery)

Second Amended Complaint (Apr. 24, 2012)

UPMC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims (May 23, 2012)

 

Countersuit

UMPC v. Highmark, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00692-JFC (W.D. Pa. filed May 23, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 16, 2012)

Defendant Highmark Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss All Claims In UPMC's Complaint (Aug. 24, 2012)

Defendant Highmark Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss All Claims in UPMC's Complaint (Aug. 24, 2012)

West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VI and VII of UPMC's Complaint (Aug. 24, 2012)

First Amended Complaint (Swept. 20, 2012)

Defendants Highmark Inc., Protoco PPI LLC, Protoco Supply Chain Services LLC, and HMPG Pharmacy LLC’S Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 11, 2012)

West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VI And VII of the Amended Complaint (Oct. 12, 2012)

Iowa Ready-Mixed Concrete
(private 2010)

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Iowa Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litig., No. C 10-4038-MWB (N.D. Iowa Mar. 8, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 10, 2012)

Class Action Complaint (May 4, 2010)

Summons in a Civil Action (May 5, 2010)

Case packs provided by the Clerk of the Court to plaintiffs (May 5, 2010)

First Amended Class Action Complaint (May 20, 2010)

Order re Consolidation, Stay, and Procedures For Selecting Interim Class Counsel (June 10, 2010)

Order re Selection of Interim Class Counsel and Liaison Counsel (June 15, 2010)

Order (June 22, 2010) (regarding possible use of auction process to select lead counsel)

Order (June 30, 2010) regarding solicitation of clients)

Order Appointing Interim Lead Counsel and Interim Liaison Counsel (July 7, 2010)

Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (July 26, 2010)

Stipulated Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan (Aug. 17, 2010)

Order Setting Trial, Final Pretrial Conference and Requirements for Final Pretrial Order (Sept. 13, 2010)

Motions to dismiss:

Defendant GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 17, 2010)

Defendant GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc.’s Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 17, 2010) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)

Defendant Steven Keith Vandebrake’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 17, 2010)

Motion To Dismiss VS Holding Company (Sept 17, 2010)

Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss VS Holding Company (Sept. 17, 2010)

Defendants Great Lakes Concrete, Inc.'s and Kent Stewart's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 17, 2010)

Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Oct. 11, 2010)

Defendant GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint (Oct. 21, 2010)

Reply of VS Holding Company to Plaintiffs' Omnibus Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Oct. 21, 2010)

Defendants Great Lakes Concrete, Inc.'s and Kent Stewart's Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint (Oct 21, 2010) (joining in GCC's reply)

Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial (Dec. 21, 2010)

NB: The various parties filed notices that their respective briefing papers addressing the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint applied a well to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Mar. 8, 2011)

Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint

Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Apr. 25, 2011)

Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Complaint by VS Holding Company (May 10, 2011)

VS Holding Company's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (May 10, 2011) (Exhibit)

Defendant GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (May 16, 2011)

Defendant GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc.’s Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (May 16, 2011)

Defendant Steven Keith Vandebrake’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (May 16, 2011)

Defendants Tri-State Ready Mix, Inc.'s and Chad Van Zee's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (May 16, 2011)

Defendants Great Lakes Concrete, Inc.'s and Kent Stewart's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (May 16, 2011)

Defendant Great Lakes Concrete, Inc.’s and Defendant Kent Stewart's Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (May 16, 2011)

Settlement and preliminary approval:

Joint Motion to Stay Litigation as to Settling Defendants (May 19, 2011)

Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreements and Preliminary Certification of Settlement Classes (July 15, 2011)

Brief in Support
Exhibit 1—Alliance/Tri-State Settlement Agreement
Exhibit 2—Alliance/Great Lakes Settlement Agreement
Exhibit 3—Alliance/Siouxland Settlement Agreement
Declaration of Irwin B. Levin
Text of Proposed Order (Preliminary Approval of Alliance/Tri-State Settlement)
Text of Proposed Order (Preliminary Approval of Alliance/Great Lakes)
Text of Proposed Order (Preliminary Approval of Alliance/Siouxland Settlement)

Order (July 15, 2011) (denying, in anticipation of settlements, all outstanding motions to dismiss without prejudice to being reasserted at a later date)

Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Certifying Alliance/Great Lakes Settlement Class, and Directing Notice (July 20, 2011)

NB: Similar orders were entered with respect to the other settling defendants

Attorneys' fees

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, the Reimbursement of Expenses, and Incentive Awards for Class Representatives (Sept. 2, 2011)

Brief in Support
Declaration of Irwin B. Levin

Defendants’ Joint Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, the Reimbursement of Expenses, and Incentive Awards for Class Representatives (Sept. 13, 2011)

ACPERA cooperation

Defendant Siouxland Concrete Company's Motion for Finding of "Satisfactory Cooperation" (Oct. 17, 2011)

Exhibit A—ACPERA
Exhibit B—2009 ACPERA extension
Exhibit C—2010 ACPERA extension
Exhibit D— Defendant Siouxland Concrete Company's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Finding of "Satisfactory Cooperation"
Exhibit E—Proposed Finding Of "Satisfactory Cooperation" Of Defendant Siouxland Concrete Company

Finding of “Satisfactory Cooperation” of Defendant Siouxland Concrete Company (Oct. 31, 2011)

Final approval:

Order Approving Alliance/Great Lakes Settlement and Final Judgment (Nov. 1, 2011)

NB: Similar orders were entered with respect to the other settling defendants

Judgment (Nov. 2, 2011) (Great Lakes)

NB: Similar orders were entered with respect to the other settling defendants

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, the Reimbursement of Expenses, and Incentive Awards for Class Representatives (Nov. 9, 2011)

Plan of distribution:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Plan of Distribution (Dec. 12, 2011)

Exhibit A—Declaration of Michelle La Count
Exhibit B—Sample Notice and Claim Form for Alliance/Siouxland Settlement
Exhibit C—Sample Notice and Claim Form for Alliance/Tri-State Settlement
Exhibit D—Sample Notice and Claim Form for Alliance/Great Lakes Settlement
Text of Proposed Order

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Plan of Distribution (Dec. 13, 2011)

Anderson News/American Media (2009)

Complaint, Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 2227 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 10, 2009)
The district court dismissed on Twombly grounds a complaint alleging a horizontal group boycott by magazine publishers against a magazine wholesaler; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded. Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), vacated and remanded, 680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012)

District court:

Docket sheet (downloaded July 7, 2012)

Motion to dismiss:

Notice of Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 14, 2009) (by American Media, Inc., Bauer Publishing Co., LP, Rodale, Inc., Curtis Circulation Company and Kable Distribution Services, Inc.)

Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint by Defendants American Media, Inc., Bauer Publishing Co., LP, Curtis Circulation Company, Distribution Services, Inc., Hachette Filipacchi Media, U.S., Kable Distribution Services, Inc., and Rodale, Inc. (Dec. 14, 2009)

Distribution Services Inc.’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dec. 14, 2009)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Distribution Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Dec. 14, 2009)

Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 14, 2009) (by Hudson News)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Hudson News Distributors L.L.C.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dec. 14, 2009)

Notice of Motion (Dec. 14, 2009) (by Time Warner)

Memorandum of Law In Support of the Motion of Time Inc. and Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dec. 14, 2009)

Notice of Motion (Dec. 14, 2009) (by Hachette)

Defendant Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc.’a Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 14, 2009)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Jan. 19, 2010)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant Distribution Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Feb. 2, 2010)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to Dismlss the Plaintiffs' Complaint by Defendants American Media, Inc., Bauer Publishing Co., LP, Curtis Circulation Company, Distribution Services, Inc., Hachette Filipacchi Media, U.S., Kable Distribution Services, Inc., and Rodale, Inc. (Feb. 2, 2010)

Defendant Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc.’s Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 2, 2010)

Reply in Support of Defendant Hudson News Distributors L.L.C.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Feb. 2, 2010)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion Of Time Inc. and Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Feb. 2, 2010)

Opinion & Order (Aug. 2, 2010) (dismissing the complaint with prejudice and denying leave to amend)

Motion for Reconsideration:

Notice of Motion (Aug. 16, 2010) (for reconsideration)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 2, 2010 Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Denying Plaintiffs Leave to Amend (Aug. 16, 2010)

Exhibit A: [Proposed} Amended Complaint

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 2, 2010, Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Denying Plaintiffs Leave to Amend (Sept. 2, 2010)

Defendant Hudson News Distributors L.L.C’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Sept. 2, 2010)

Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Sept. 3, 2010) (on behalf of American Media, Inc., Bauer Publishing Co., LP., Curtis Circulation Company, Distribution Services, Inc., Hachette Filipacchi Media, U.S., Kable Distribution Services, Inc., and Rodale, Inc.)

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law In Further Support of their Motion for Reconsideration (Sept. 14, 2010)

Order (Oct. 25, 2010) (denying reconsideration)

Notice of Appeal (Nov. 8, 2010)

Second Circuit

Docket sheet (downloaded July 8, 2012) (No. 10-4591)

Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Anderson News, L.L.C. and Anderson Services, L.L.C. Supporting Reversal of the District Court (Jan. 21, 2011) (Appendix)

Brief of Defendant-Appellee Kable Distribution Services, Inc. (Apr. 18, 2011)

Brief for Defendants-Appellees American Media, Inc. and Distribution Services, Inc. (Apr. 18, 2011)

Brief for Defendant-Appellee Curtis Circulation Company (Apr. 18, 2011)

Brief for Defendant-Appellee Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc. (Apr. 18, 2011)

Brief for Defendant-Appellee Rodale, Inc. (Apr. 18, 2011)

Brief for Defendant-Appellee Hudson News Distributors L.L.C. in Support of the District Court’s Judgment (Apr. 18, 2011)

Brief for Defendants-Appellees Time Inc. and Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. (Apr. 18, 2011)

Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Anderson News, L.L.C. and Lloyd T. Whitaker, As Assignee for Anderson Services, L.L.C. (May 16, 2011)

Opinion, Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., No. 10-4591-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2012) (reported as 680 F.3d 162)

Judgment (Apr. 3, 2012)

On remand to district court

 

 

Blood Reagents
(private 2009)

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 09-2081 (E.D. Pa. filed Feb. 16, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 23, 2012)

Transfer Order (J.P.M.L. Aug. 17, 2009)

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-1) (J.P.M.L. Aug. 19, 2009)

Motion by Defendants Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Mar. 17, 2010)

Memorandum in Support of Motion by Defendants Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Mar. 17, 2010)

Defendant Immucor, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 17, 2010) (with supporting memorandum)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (June 23, 2010)

Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion by Defendants Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (July 9, 2010)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Immucor, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (July 7, 2010)

Order (Aug. 24, 2010) (denying the motions to dismiss by Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics and Immucor and granting the motion to dismiss by Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems)

Memorandum (Aug. 24, 2010)

Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal (Sept. 7, 2010)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal (Oct. 5, 2010)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal (Sept. 10, 2010)

Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal (Oct. 19, 2010)

Memorandum (Dec. 14, 2010) (denying motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for interlocutory appeal)

 

Digital Music
(private 2007)

MDL Panel

Conditional Transfer Order, In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., MD-1780 (J.P.M.L. filed Aug. 18, 2006) (reported at 444 F. Supp. 2d 1351)

28 U.S.C. § 1407
(multidistrict litigation)

JPML docket sheet (downloaded March 5, 2010)

Motion for Transfer and Coordination or Consolidation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (April 5, 2006)

Consent of Transferee Court (August 16, 2006)

± JPML web site

S.D.N.Y.

Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 06 MDL No. 1780 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 13, 2007) ("SCAC")

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 25, 2014)

Defendants’ Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (July 30, 2007)

Bertelsmann, Inc.'s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (July 30, 2007)

Defendant Time Warner's Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (July 30, 2007) (Exhibits)

Sony Corporation of America's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (July 30, 2007)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (September 13, 2007)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Bertelsmann, Inc.’s, Sony Corporation of America’s and Time Warner, Inc.’s Supplemental Memoranda of Law (September 13, 2007)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (October 15, 2007)

Bertelsmann, Inc.'s Supplemental Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (October 15, 2007)

Defendant Time Warner’s Supplemental Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (October 15, 2007)

Sony Corporation of America's Supplemental Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (October 15, 2007)

Opinion, In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 06 MDL No. 1780 (S.D.N.Y. October 9, 2008) (dismissing complaint) (reported as 592 F. Supp. 2d 435)

Judgment, In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 06 MDL No. 1780 (S.D.N.Y. October 21, 2008)

SDNY Notice of Right to Appeal (October 21, 2008)

Notice of Appeal (Nov. 19, 2008)

Second Circuit on appeal

Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't, No. 08-5637-cv (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2010) (reversing dismissal and reinstating complaint) (reported at 592 F.3d 314)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 7, 2010)

Mandate (Jan. 13, 2009) (remanding case to the district court)

S.D.N.Y. on remand

Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (June 2, 2010)

Notice of Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (June 23, 2010)

Defendants’ Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (June 23, 2010)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (July 23, 2010)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law In Further Support of Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (August 6, 2010)

Opinion & Order (July 18, 2011)

Conformed Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (Aug. 31, 2011) (confroming complaint to July 18 order)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) (Mar. 19, 2014)

[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) (Mar. 19, 2014)

Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) (Mar. 19, 2014)

Declaration of Roger G. Noll (Mar. 14, 2014)

 

Toys 'R Us
(FTC 1996)

Complaint, In re Toys "r" Us, No. 9278 (F.T.C. filed May 22, 1996)

FTC

initial Decision (Sept. 1997) (FTC news release) (reported at 126 F.T.C. 418)

Oral argument transcript (Feb. 19, 1998)

Final Decision (Oct. 14, 1998) (FTC news release) (reported at 126 F.T.C. 527)

Statement of Commissioner Swindle Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part (Oct. 14, 1998)

Final Order (Oct. 14, 1998)

Seventh Circuit appeal

Brief for the Respondent Federal Trade Commission (April 1999)

Opinion (Aug. 1, 2000)

Petition to reopen and modify

Petition of Toys R Us, Inc. to Reopen and Modify Final Order (Jan. 9, 2014) (FTC news release)

Commission Order Reopening and Modifying Order (Apr. 11, 2014) (FTC news release)

4. Antitrust Class Actions

6. Proving Reasonableness