IN RE FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION


\|

Keywords & Phrases

CaseNo: IRFGAL193905, CourtName: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, State: PA Pennsylvania, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>IRFGAL193905, United States, District Court, Privilege, Glass, Antitrust, Amnesty, Enforcement, Amnesty-related Materials, Amnesty Policy, Enforcement Investigatory Privilege, Pilkington, Appeals, Discovery, Flat Glass, Cir, America, Disclosure, Confidentiality, Law Enforcement, Corporate Leniency Policy, Government, Law Enforcement Investigatory, Corporate Amnesty Policy, Auto Glass, Private, Subpoena, City, Westinghouse, Applicant, Leniency-related Materials, Frankenhauser, Justice Department, Disclose , ContentID: 120245924

Case Documents

BRIEF US
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 112743

31 pages
PDF

BRIEF REPLY US
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 112742

16 pages
PDF

2000-05

AMICUS US OPPOSING DISCOVERY OF AMNESTY-RELATED MATERIALS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 112741

22 pages
PDF

Total Documents: 3 documents , 69 pages

Price: $ 29.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . BRIEF US

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

UNITED STATES
GLASS
ANTITRUST
PRIVILEGE
PILKINGTON
PLAINTIFFS
FLAT GLASS
APPEALS
LAW ENFORCEMENT
CORPORATE LENIENCY POLICY
AMERICA
LITIGATION
CIR
DISCLOSURE
DEFENDANTS
LENIENCY-RELATED MATERIALS
KLEIN DECL
GOVERNMENT
AUTO GLASS
LOF
CONFIDENTIALITY
LURIE COMPANIES
WESTINGHOUSE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DELLWOOD FARMS
FRANKENHAUSER
WESTERN DISTRICT
GLASS SERVICE
CONSPIRACIES

    98
                            98
                            98
                            98----3498
                                          3498
                                          3498
                                          3498

                       IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
 ________________
                            IN RE:  NELSON v. PILKINGTON
                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                               Intervenor-
Appellant.
  (FULL CAPTION ON NEXT PAGE)
 ________________
               ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                            BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

                                           Joel I. Klein
                                            Assistant Attorney General
                                           A. Douglas Melamed
                                             Deputy Assistant Attorney General
                                           John J. Powers, III
                                           Adam D. Hirsh*
                                           Attorneys
                                           U.S. Department of Justice
                                           Antitrust Division -- Appellate
                                           601 D Street NW, Room 10535
                                           Washington, DC  20530
                                           (202) 305-7420
                                           Attorneys for Intervenor-Appellant
*Counsel of Record                         United States of America










     -2-

SNIPPETS:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN RE: NELSON v. PILKINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

-2-IN RE: FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

BRIAN S. NELSON, d/b/a Jamestown Glass Service; MEL'S AUTO GLASS, INC.; A. WAXMAN & CO, on OLSTERY AND ITS SUCCESSORS; PORT CITY GLASS & MIRROR, INC., on its own behalf and on behalf of all half of itself and all others similarly situated; SUPERIOR WINDSHIELD INSTALLATION, INC., on its lf of itself and all others similarly situated;

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORY PRIVILEGE

PRECLUDES DISCLOSURE OF THE LENIENCY-RELATED

Affiliated Mfrs, Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 56 F.3d 521 (3d Cir.

....................................................................16, 17 Dellwood Farms,

Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S.

..................................................................15, 17 The Lurie Companies,

and defendants filed their response the same day; plaintiffs replied on October 5,

Whether the district court erred in ordering Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. (LOF) to identify

issue, even if they do not know exactly which documents were shown to government counsel,

Corporate Leniency Policy," but was denied such relief.

"Justice Department") investigates and prosecutes both civil and criminal antitrust

amnesty.5 Klein Decl.

But conspiracies, including conspiracies that violate Section 1 of

The Corporate Leniency Policy depends on confidentiality.

7The documents shown at the meeting, together with the post-meeting correspondence, are

interpretation of this Court's decision in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the

2 . BRIEF REPLY US

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

UNITED STATES
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORY PRIVILEGE
GLASS
PLAINTIFFS
APPEALS
LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORY
CIR
ANTITRUST
CITY
AMERICA
PILKINGTON
AUTO GLASS
LENIENCY
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
D/B/A
FRANKENHAUSER
CONFIDENTIALITY
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
WESTINGHOUSE
DISCLOSURE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
GOVERNMENT
DIVISION COUNSEL
NELSON
WESTERN DISTRICT
GLASS SERVICE
DISCOVERY
DELLWOOD FARMS
DEFENDANTS

 98-3498

                       IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
 ________________
                            IN RE:  NELSON v. PILKINGTON
                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                               Intervenor-
Appellant.
  (FULL CAPTION ON NEXT PAGE)
 ________________
               ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                    REPLY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

                                           Joel I. Klein
                                            Assistant Attorney General
                                           A. Douglas Melamed
                                             Deputy Assistant Attorney General
                                           John J. Powers, III
                                           Adam D. Hirsh*
                                           Attorneys
                                           U.S. Department of Justice
                                           Antitrust Division -- Appellate
                                           601 D Street NW, Room 10535
                                           Washington, DC  20530
                                           (202) 305-7420
                                           Attorneys for Intervenor-Appellant
*Counsel of Record                         United States of America



                                         Case No. 98-3498
 IN RE: FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
       (MDL No. 1200)
 BRIAN S. NELSON, d/b/a Jamestown Glass Service; MEL'S AUTO GLASS, INC.; A.
WAXMAN & CO, on behalf of itself, and all others similarly situated; DESIGNER WINDOWS,
INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; MOSES MOORE ALL GLASS
ASPECTS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AAA GLASS, INC., d/b/a
THE GLASS DOCTOR, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; THE LURIE
COMPANIES, INC., VSTB ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a PERFECTO AUTO GLASS &
UPHOLSTERY AND ITS SUCCESSORS; PORT CITY GLASS & MIRROR, INC., on its own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN HEALY, JR.; COUNTY AUTO
GLASS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; GERARD J.
CLABBERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; KIRSCHNER
CORPORATION, INC., t/a BERWYN GLASS COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; HARTUNG AGALITE GLASS CO., d/b/a HARTUNG GLASS
INDUSTRIES; ALL STAR GLASS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;

SNIPPETS:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN RE: NELSON v. PILKINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORY PRIVILEGE IS

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN BALANCING PLAINTIFFS' NEED

FOR THE DOCUMENTS AGAINST THE HARM THAT DISCLOSURE

Cir.

................................................19 Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128

Plaintiffs cling to the Frankenhauser factors as the proper standard for evaluating the

1980), and Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir.

the United States Commission on Civil Rights subpoenaed various documents from the City of

At oral argument before the district court, the City Solicitor added a claim of "executive

the government to do so.

1Ironically, in Frankenhauser itself, another decision within this Circuit, the court agreed disclosed."

Here, however, the United States, holder of the privilege in question, is not plaintiffs' (or

suit in the district court, particularly on a discovery issue, let alone to then

case in part because it preserves the confidential nature of the leniency program.

government's claim of privilege over FBI tapes the Justice Department had played

and oral assurances to those who have approached Division counsel, amnesty negotiations have

In In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation,

3 . AMICUS US OPPOSING DISCOVERY OF AMNESTY-RELATED MATERIALS

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

PRIVILEGE
ENFORCEMENT
AMNESTY-RELATED MATERIALS
UNITED STATES
AMNESTY POLICY
LAW
ANTITRUST
DISCOVERY
COURT
PLAINTIFFS
CORPORATE AMNESTY POLICY
PRIVATE
SUBPOENA
APPLICANT
DISCLOSE
CONFIDENTIALITY
CORPORATIONS
DISCLOSURE
FLAT GLASS
DEFENDANTS
GOVERNMENT
AMNESTY NEGOTIATIONS
DISTRICT COURT
OPPOSING DISCOVERY
CONSPIRACY
EFFECTIVENESS
INVESTIGATIVE TOOL
RESOLUTION
DIRECT IMPACT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
)
IN RE: FLAT GLASS )
ANTITRUST LITIGATION )
) MISC. NO. 97-550
) MDL NO. 1200
)
) HON. DONALD E. ZIEGLER
___________________________________ )
______________________

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
OPPOSING DISCOVERY OF AMNESTY-RELATED MATERIALS
______________________

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The United States has principal responsibility for enforcing the federal antitrust

laws. A very important investigative tool in the government's antitrust enforcement

effort is the Antitrust Division's Corporate Amnesty Policy. At issue in this private

antitrust case is whether information concerning an application for amnesty is subject to

discovery. The resolution of this issue may have a direct impact on the government's

enforcement of the antitrust laws. Moreover, the United States has already objected, on

the basis of privilege, to a subpoena served on it in this case that would have required it

to disclose whether an amnesty application was made and, if so, to produce information

about it. Accordingly, the United States has a strong interest in the proper

determination of this matter. At the hearing March 6, 1998, this Court, in response to a

letter from government counsel to one of the defense attorneys in this case, indicated

that it would be willing to consider the government's views on this discovery issue.

Hrg. Tr. 23.

SNIPPETS:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE OPPOSING DISCOVERY OF AMNESTY-RELATED MATERIALS

The United States has principal responsibility for enforcing the federal antitrust

A very important investigative tool in the government's antitrust enforcement

effort is the Antitrust Division's Corporate Amnesty Policy.

The resolution of this issue may have a direct impact on the government's

letter from government counsel to one of the defense attorneys in this case,

Plaintiffs in these consolidated, treble-damage, private antitrust suits are

and architectural flat glass conspired to fix prices and allocate markets between

Plaintiffs allege that defendants formed and maintained

their conspiracy through a series of letters, conversations, and meetings, including at

thus necessitating resolution by this Court.

The Department ordinarily does not disclose its ongoing grand jury investigations.

the Lurie plaintiffs issued a third-party subpoena duces tecum addressed to the

the law enforcement investigatory privilege (see

The Antitrust Division has had a Corporate Amnesty Policy (also known as

corporations that came forward with evidence of an antitrust

The Amnesty Policy depends on confidentiality.

not publicly disclose the identity of an amnesty applicant, absent prior disclosure by the

applicant, unless required to do so by court order in connection with litigation.

The Department depends on the confidentiality of amnesty negotiations

To the extent that confidentiality is critical to the effectiveness of the Amnesty

I hereby certify that on this 26th day of March, 1998, I caused the foregoing Brief For The


\|