Opinion
19-md-02918-MMC
01-05-2023
IN RE HARD DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to ALL ACTIONS
ORDER DENYING MOTION [DOC. NO. 775] FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAXINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Motion, filed December 19, 2022, by Seagate Plaintiffs ("Seagate") and Flextronics International USA, Inc. ("Flex") (collectively, "DAPs" (Direct Action Plaintiffs)) "for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge." Having read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.
On December 2, 2022, DAPs filed an "Emergency Motion for Clarification of Protective Order and Expert Stipulation in Light of Upcoming December 6, 2022 Deposition." That same date, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore, who, on December 5, 2022, issued her "Order Regarding Motion for Clarification." By the instant motion, DAPs seek relief from Magistrate Judge Westmore's order to the extent she found that, under the terms of this Court's Order approving a stipulation "Regarding Non-Discoverability of Certain Expert Materials and Communications" (hereinafter, "Expert Stipulation"), Class Plaintiffs need not provide DAPs with the "underlying backups" used by Class Plaintiffs' experts in forming the // opinions set forth in their reports, but that, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, DAPs could pay to obtain the material.
The reports, which were submitted in support of Class Plaintiffs' respective motions for class certification, address "overcharges and pass-through rates." (See DAPs' Mot. for Clarification, filed December 2, 2022, at 1:6; see also Class Pls.' Response, filed December 5, 2022, at 3:21-22.)
The instant dispute between DAPs and Class Plaintiffs pertains to the Expert Stipulation's use of the ambiguous phrases "these actions" and "this case" (see Expert Stipulation [Doc. No. 206] at 1:3-13), and, in particular, whether the parties to said Stipulation intended the latter to have the same meaning as the former.
In context, the phrase "these actions" would appear to refer to all cases comprising the multi-district litigation ("MDL") titled In re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, each party in each case then comprising said MDL having signed the Expert Stipulation. As to "this case," DAPs, in essence, argue the phrase, which is used in ¶ 3 of the Expert Stipulation, the section setting forth entitlement to "underlying data," likewise refers to all actions comprising the above-referenced MDL. Class Plaintiffs, by contrast, argue the rights and obligations identified in ¶ 3 are those "between a plaintiff and defendants in a specific case" (see Class Pls.' Response at 10:16), and, consequently, inapplicable to entities that are not parties to such specific case.
Although Flex was not a signatory to the Expert Stipulation, in that it had not filed its complaint as of the time the Stipulation was entered, it subsequently agreed to comply with its terms. (See Joint Status Report [Doc. No. 513] at 2:15, 17-18.)
Magistrate Judge Westmore, in endeavoring to resolve the issues raised by the phraseology chosen by the parties, accepted Class Plaintiffs' interpretation of "this case" and further accepted Class Plaintiffs' argument that DAPs nonetheless could obtain the backup material by paying Class Plaintiffs a pro rata share of Class Plaintiffs' expenses in processing said material.
The Court finds Magistrate Judge Westmore's interpretation of "this case" cannot be characterized as unreasonable, let alone "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Although given such interpretation, it would appear that Rule 26(b)(4)(D) likewise is inapplicable, DAPs have not shown they have been prejudiced by the application of such Rule, and, indeed, have benefitted from having been given an opportunity to obtain relief thereunder.
Lastly, to the extent DAPs argue no defendant, in the event Magistrate Judge Westmore's ruling stands, should have the ability to use the above-referenced backup material against them, the Court declines to issue what at this time would be an advisory opinion, in that no effort to make such use has yet to occur.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Motion for Relief is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.