Law.com
  • News
    • Newswire
    • Large Firm
    • Corporate Counsel
    • Technology
    • Washington
    • Supreme Court
    • International
    • Legal Blog Watch
    • Video
  • Publications
    • The American Lawyer
    • Corporate Counsel
    • Law Technology News
    • The National Law Journal
    • New York Law Journal
    • New Jersey Law Journal
    • Connecticut Law Tribune
    • The Legal Intelligencer (PA)
    • Daily Business Review (FL)
    • Delaware Law Weekly
    • Daily Report (GA)
    • The Recorder (CA)
    • Texas Lawyer
    • Publication E-Alerts
    • More Publication Sites
  • Legal Research & Directories
    • Books Online
    • Smart Litigator
    • ALM Experts
    • Verdict Search
    • Court Reporters
    • Legal Dictionary
    • LegalTech® Directory
    • Newsletters
    • More Directories
  • Surveys, Lists & Rankings
    • Amlaw 100
    • NLJ 250
    • Global 100
    • The A-List
    • ALM Legal Intelligence
    • Surveys
    • More Lists & Rankings
  • lawjobs.com
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Resume
    • The Careerist Blog
    • News & Views
  • LawCatalog Store
    • Books Online
    • Best-Selling Books
    • Books
    • Directories
    • E-Newsletters
    • Magazines
    • Newspapers
    • Newsletters
    • Surveys
    • Research Services
    • Webinars
    • Events
  • CLE & Events
    • CLE Center
    • ALM Events
    • LegalTech
    • Virtual LegalTech
    • Insight Legal Events
    • Webinars
Home
 
Article
  • email
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • alert
  • rss

Law.com Home > Plaintiffs Score With E-Mail Evidence in Multidistrict Price-Fixing Case

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Plaintiffs Score With E-Mail Evidence in Multidistrict Price-Fixing Case

By Pamela A. MacLean All Articles 

The National Law Journal

July 7, 2008

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
What began last week as a class certification hearing on one of five national, high-tech price-fixing cases pending in San Francisco became a big score for plaintiffs after the judge asked what evidence they had of a conspiracy, then read aloud an e-mail by competing executives that suggests how to keep prices high.

The suit combines at least 51 separate civil antitrust actions against Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices/ATI Technologies (AMD) that allege price-fixing in the market for computer chips that control images, known as graphics processing units (GPUs).

It is one of five multidistrict cases, before five separate judges, assigned to San Francisco that assert price-fixing in various types of computer chips, flat panel screens and cathode ray tubes.

After reading the incriminating e-mail during a July 1 hearing, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California turned to a table of plaintiffs lawyers representing direct purchasers in the GPU multidistrict antitrust case saying, "This is not a bad document for you. It is not a home run but it is a base hit." To make matters worse for the defense, his comment came on the heels of a testy opening by Alsup with company lawyers. Alsup berated the defense lawyers for attempting to keep sealed throughout the public hearing material that they consider trade secrets.

"This court is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of your companies. I am against you hiding information from the public. If we get to summary judgment in this case nothing will be under seal," he said.

Alsup told plaintiffs attorney William Isaacson, of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, that he didn't care "if it is under seal and it is the recipe for Coke, you have my permission to blurt it out." The class certification question has significant ramifications. If granted, the GPU multidistrict litigation, M07-1826WHA, would be only the second of the five multidistrict cases to achieve that status. Only the much earlier dynamic random access memory (DRAM) case has been certified as a class action.

Nvidia and AMD have been accused in as many as 51 civil suits, combined before Alsup, of fixing prices in the GPU market. Graphics processing units are chips used in computers, laptops and other devices generally to display 2D and 3D images.

Alsup at first appeared skeptical of allowing three small direct purchasers of GPU chips, roughly $7.8 million worth, to represent the direct purchaser class including giant companies such as Microsoft, Dell, Apple and others.

"The difference in bargaining power [among plaintiffs] would not defeat claims they are all typical purchasers," Isaacson argued.

AMD attorney Stephen C. Neal of Cooley Godward Kronish in San Francisco countered that the class certification claim was "woefully defective." Neal said that the plaintiffs' expert analysis of pricing "amounts to little more than economic sophistry." Alsup asked Issacson whether the 9 million documents turned over in discovery contained evidence of a conspiracy to fix prices. Issacson pointed to a 2002 e-mail from Nvidia senior vice president of marketing, Dan Vivoli, to ATI's president and chief operating officer, Dave Orton.

Vivoli wrote, in part, "I really think we should work harder together on the marketing front. As you and I have talked about, even though we are competitors, we have the common goal of making our category a well positioned, respected playing field. $5 and $8 stocks are a result of no respect." "That's not good for the defense," said Alsup after reading the e-mail aloud in the courtroom. "A jury would like to see this," he said.

Alsup is one of five judges riding herd over price-fixing claims in the computer chip industry consolidated in San Francisco from multidistrict proceedings in GPU, DRAM, static random access memory, TFT-LCD (flat panel) makers and cathode ray tubes (CRT) cases.

Alsup indicated that he would take the class certification issue under submission at the close of arguments.



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Boies, Schiller & Flexner
  • Cooley Godward Kronish

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • GPU
  • Advanced Micro Devices
  • ATI Technologies
  • Microsoft
  • Dell
  • Apple

Key categories

    
  • Antitrust and Trade Regulation

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Donovan Criticizes Secret Payoff to Lopez Victims
    •      
  2. Real Estate Lawyers Target Closing Vendors
    •      
  3. Bernstein Upholds $78.4 Mil. Verdict in Phila. Med Mal Case
    •      
  4. New District Judge Takes Firm Line on Attorney Conduct
    •         
      • Subscription Required
  5. The 2013 Am Law 100
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

3-D Printing: The Next Big Thing in IP Law?

Best Legal Departments 2013

News Corp. Hires Ex-Skadden Communications Chief Bush

Law Firm Leaders' Confidence Slipping, Says Survey

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

CEIC: the Destination for Digital Investigation

Using Computer Forensics to Investigate IP Theft

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Bar Candidate Quits N.Y. Job To Satisfy N.J. Practice Bylaw

Pro Bono Work Proposed as Condition for Bar Admission
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge in Stop-and-Frisk Case Relishes Her Independence

Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation

High Court Names Evers as the FJD's Court Administrator
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Third Circuit Rules Against Citgo in Case Over Oil Spill

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Litigator of the Week: Who Needs a Jury Consultant?
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

DeKalb Judge Dismisses, Then Recuses

Jury Finds For Attorney In Legal-Mal Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Law.com Network
  • ADVERTISE

law.com

  • Tour the New Site
  • Newswire
  • Special Reports
  • International News
  • Lists, Surveys & Rankings
  • Legal Blogs
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Site Map

alm national

  • The American Lawyer
  • The Am Law Litigation Daily
  • Corporate Counsel
  • Law Technology News
  • The National Law Journal

alm regional

  • Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Daily Business Review (FL)
  • Delaware Law Weekly
  • Daily Report (GA)
  • The Legal Intelligencer (PA)
  • New Jersey Law Journal
  • New York Law Journal
  • GC New York
  • The Recorder (CA)
  • Texas Lawyer
  • The Asian Lawyer
  • Focus Europe

directories

  • ALM Experts
  • LegalTech® Directory
  • In-House Law Departments at the Top 500 Companies
  • Top Rated Lawyers
  • The American Lawyer Top Rated Lawyers
  • The American Lawyer Legal Recruiter's Directory
  • Corporate Counsel Top Rated Lawyers
  • The National Law Journal Leadership Profiles
  • National Directory of Minority Attorneys
  • Go-To Law firms of the Top 500 Companies

books & newsletters

  • Best-Selling Books
  • Publication E-Alerts
  • Law Journal Newsletters
  • LawCatalog Store
  • Law Journal Press Online

research

  • ALM Legal Intelligence
  • Court Reporters
  • MA 3000
  • Verdict Search
  • ALM Experts
  • Legal Dictionary
  • Smart Litigator

events & conferences

  • ALM Events
  • LegalTech®
  • Virtual LegalTech®
  • Virtual Events
  • Webinars & Online Events
  • Insight Information

reprints

  • Reprints

online cle

  • CLE Center

career

  • Lawjobs
About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Reprints  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions |  ALM User License Agreement