Capacitor companies’ expert witness testimony stricken

A federal judge on Monday ordered testimony from a defense expert witness in an antitrust case involving capacitors be stricken from the record after she offered a different damages estimate.

Laila Haider testified before a federal jury Thursday that she estimated damages incurred from the defendants Nippon Chemi-Con and its U.S. subsidiary United Chemi-Con from overcharging on capacitors were only $66 million, far below the $427 million figure plaintiff's counsel had established.

A class of over 1,800 U.S. companies accused more than 20 defendant companies of price-fixing from 2001 to 2014. Nippon Chemi-Con and United Chemi-Con are the only remaining defendants. In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, 3:17-md-02801-JD, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff's counsel, which includes Joseph R. Saveri, Steven N. Williams, Anupama K. Reddy and Christopher K. Young, all of whom are with Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, filed a motion on Friday to strike Haider's testimony.

On Monday, counsel for the defense, which included Joseph J. Bial and Roberto Finzi of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, attempted to respond to the motion, saying that in Haider's report for her calculations, nowhere does she claim her number is an estimate of alternative damages or an endorsement of the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. James T. McClave's, model. The $66 million number is only a result from Haider's calculations and her intention was to show McClave's model was unreliable and biased because a small change in the variables would produce wildly different results, Finzi said.

Williams noted that only one other defendant out of the original more than 20 defendants in this yearslong litigation put forward an alternative number contesting the $427 million estimate.

U.S. District Judge James Donato quickly dismissed the defense's argument, saying "I think you're quite wrong."

Donato went on to reference Haider's testimony on Thursday, saying the defendants' counsel sought to solicit testimony about alternative damages from Haider and she gave an answer. The judge then ruled to strike Haider's testimony from the record.

Responding via email after the hearing, Williams said, "We are not surprised at what happened today. It was a fundamental violation of the rules by a witness who purports to know those rules, and it appeared to have been deliberate and calculated."

The jury was supposed to hear on Monday plaintiff's cross-examination of Haider as well as testimony from three more witnesses from the defendants but one juror had a personal emergency. Court was adjourned early and all testimony was moved to Tuesday.

Attorneys for the defendants declined to comment.