Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William V. Reiss (pro hac vice)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`1325 Avenue of Americas, Suite 2601
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 980-7400
`Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
`wreiss@robinskaplan.com
`
`Christopher T. Micheletti (SBN 136446)
`ZELLE LLP
`555 12th Street, Suite 1230
`Oakland, CA 94607
`Telephone: (415) 693-0700
`Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
`cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for End-User
`Plaintiffs
`
`(Additional Counsel on Signature Page)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`IN RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION
`ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02918-MMC
`
`MDL No. 2918
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH
`AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
`
`
`This Document Relates to:
`ALL END-USER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................... 5
`II.
`III. THE PARTIES ................................................................................................................ 7
`A. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................. 7
`B. TDK Defendants ................................................................................................... 17
`C. NHK Defendants ................................................................................................... 18
`IV. AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS ....................................................................... 20
`V.
`INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE ............................................................... 21
`VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS........................................................................................ 23
`A. The HDD Suspension Assembly Industry ............................................................ 23
`B. The End-Products at Issue: Standalone Storage Devices and
`Computers ............................................................................................................. 28
`C. The Nature of the Conspiracy ............................................................................... 30
`D. TDK and NHK Spring Further Conspire to Wound and then
`Eliminate Their Co-Conspirator, HTI ................................................................... 41
`E. NHK Spring Pled Guilty to Conspiring to Fix Prices and Allocate
`Market Shares for HDD Suspension Assemblies ................................................. 42
`F. Additional Government Investigations ................................................................. 44
`G. The Structure and Characteristics of the HDD Suspension
`Assembly Market Support the Alleged Conspiracy .............................................. 48
`1. The HDD Suspension Assemblies Market Has High Barriers
`to Entry .......................................................................................................... 48
`2. The HDD Suspension Assemblies Market is Highly
`Concentrated ................................................................................................. 49
`3. Market Concentration on the “Buy” Side ..................................................... 51
`4. Homogeneity of Products and Inelasticity of Demand ................................. 53
`5. Market Maturity and Declining Demand ...................................................... 54
`6. Defendants Maintained Close Business Relationships ................................. 56
`H. Distribution Chain/Sale to Plaintiffs and the End-Users They
`Represent ............................................................................................................... 57
`I. The Markets for Suspension Assemblies, HDDs, and Products
`Incorporating HDDs .............................................................................................. 58
`VII. THE INFLATED PRICES OF SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES WERE
`PASSED THROUGH TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE END-USERS
`THEY REPRESENT ..................................................................................................... 59
`A. Suspension Assemblies Are Commodity-Like Products That Are
`Physically Traceable Throughout the Distribution Chain ..................................... 59
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 125
`
`B.
`
`Increased Costs Will Be Passed-through to Customers in
`Competitive Markets ............................................................................................. 60
`1. The Markets for Manufacturing and Sales of Standalone
`Storage Devices and Computers with HDDs are Highly
`Competitive at Each Level of the Distribution Chain ................................... 61
`2. Economic and Legal Literature Indicates that Unlawful
`Overcharges on a Component Will Be Passed-through in
`Prices for Products Containing that Component ........................................... 67
`3. The Precise HDD Suspension Assembly Overcharge Passed
`Through to the Products End-Users Purchased Can Be
`Measured with Regression Analysis ............................................................. 68
`VIII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................. 71
`IX. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIMELY ...................................................................... 73
`A. Defendants Have Engaged in a Continuing Violation. ......................................... 73
`B. The Discovery Rule Tolled the Statute of Limitations. ........................................ 73
`C. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations. ................................. 74
`D. The DOJ’s Criminal Proceedings Suspended the Statute of
`Limitations. ........................................................................................................... 76
`X. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED ........................................................................................... 76
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of State Antitrust Statutes (on
`behalf of Plaintiffs and the Classes) ...................................................................... 76
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ................................................................................. 94
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unjust Enrichment (on behalf of
`Plaintiffs and members of the Classes) ............................................................... 113
`XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................. 113
`XII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ................................................................................... 115
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (the “Classes” as defined
`
`below), upon personal knowledge as to the facts pertaining to themselves and upon information
`
`and belief based on the investigation of counsel as to all other matters, bring suit against TDK
`
`Corporation (“TDK”), Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co. Ltd. (“MPT”), Magnecomp
`
`Corporation (“Magnecomp”), SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd. (“SAE”), Hutchinson Technology Inc.
`
`(“HTI”), NHK Spring Co., Ltd. (“NHK Spring”), NHK International Corporation (“NHK
`
`International”), NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“NHK Thailand”), NAT Peripheral (Dong
`
`Guan) Co., Ltd. (“NAT Dong Guan”), and NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd. (“NAT H.K.”) for
`
`damages and other relief pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection
`
`laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment, demand a trial by jury, and allege as follows:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-
`
`conspirators to fix prices of, and allocate market shares for, hard disk drive (“HDD”) suspension
`
`assemblies. HDD suspension assemblies are indispensable components of HDDs, which use
`
`magnetism to store information electronically. HDDs containing HDD suspension assemblies are
`
`sold both as stand-alone storage devices and incorporated into a variety of electronics.
`
`2.
`
`The fact of the price-fixing conspiracy is not in doubt. On July 29, 2019, the U.S.
`
`Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that NHK Spring agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5
`
`million fine for its role in the conspiracy.1 On September 23, 2019, NHK Spring pled guilty.2
`
`3.
`
`According to the plea agreement, Defendants “engaged in discussions and attended
`
`meetings with each other. During these discussions, [Defendants] reached agreements to refrain
`
`from competing on prices for, fix the prices of, and allocate their respective market shares for, HDD
`
`
`1 Japanese Manufacturer Agrees to Plead Guilty to Fixing Prices for Suspension Assemblies
`Used in Hard Disk Drives, DOJ (Jul. 29, 2019), available at
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/japanese-manufacturer-agrees-plead-guilty-fixing-prices-
`suspension-assemblies-used-hard-disk; Information at 2-3, United States v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:19-cr-20503 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2019).
`2 Rule 11 Plea Agreement, United States v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-cr-20503 (E.D. Mich.
`Sept. 23, 2019); Notice of Criminal Monetary Imposition, United States v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:19-cr-20503 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`suspension assemblies to be sold in the United States and elsewhere. To effectuate these
`
`agreements, employees and officers of [Defendants] exchanged HDD suspension assemblies
`
`pricing information, including anticipated pricing quotes, in the United States and elsewhere. The
`
`[Defendants] relied on their agreements not to compete and used the exchanged pricing information
`
`to inform their negotiations with U.S. and foreign customers that purchased HDD suspension
`
`assemblies and produced hard disk drives for sale, or delivery to, the United States and elsewhere.”3
`
`4.
`
`On February 13, 2020, the DOJ indicted Hitoshi Hashimoto and Hiroyuki Tamura
`
`for their roles in the “conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to stabilize,
`
`maintain, and fix prices for HDD suspension assemblies sold in the United States and elsewhere.”
`
`Both were general managers of NHK Spring’s disk drive suspension and component sales
`
`department, who were involved in the sale and pricing of NHK Spring’s HDD suspension
`
`assemblies.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants’ conspiracy has also drawn the attention of antitrust regulators abroad.
`
`On February 9, 2018, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) issued a cease and desist order
`
`to Defendants NHK Spring and NAT H.K., found that they substantially restrained competition in
`
`the HDD suspension assemblies market by agreeing to maintain sales prices, and imposed fines of
`
`¥1076.16 million yen. The JFTC’s cease and desist order identified cartel activity by Defendants
`
`NHK Spring, NAT HK, TDK, MPT, and SAE.
`
`6.
`
`In April 2018, Brazilian antitrust authorities launched an investigation into
`
`allegations that TDK, HTI, MPT, SAE, and NHK Spring colluded from 2003 to May 2016 to fix
`
`prices of HDD suspension assemblies. The Taiwan Fair Trade Commission and the Competition
`
`and Consumer Commission of Singapore also have investigated the cartel.
`
`7.
`
`This conspiracy went to the highest levels of these companies including the
`
`President and CEO of TDK, the President and CEO of MPT, the Vice Chairman of SAE, the
`
`President and CEO of NHK Spring, the President of NAT, as well as other senior directors, board
`
`members, vice presidents and other top management personnel.
`
`3 Rule 11 Plea Agreement, United States v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-cr-20503 (E.D. Mich.
`Sept. 23, 2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 6 of 125
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Defendants knew that what they were doing was wrong and sought to conceal their
`
`conduct. Emails and memoranda containing information from competitors advised recipients to
`
`“handle with care,” “delete this email and all other related ones,” “we would be better off not
`
`leaving anything in the emails,” and “please be careful with the handling [of] the information.”
`
`After NHK Spring received confidential information from MPT’s President Albert Ong, NHK
`
`Spring’s Tamura—who was subsequently indicted for his role in the conspiracy—instructed,
`
`“Don’t mention Mr. Albert, since it’s a crime.”
`
`9.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy, American consumers have been substantially
`
`harmed. In announcing the guilty plea, Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Antitrust Division
`
`Makan Delrahim stated that the “impact on American consumers and businesses is direct and
`
`substantial.”4
`
`10.
`
`NHK confirmed these effects on U.S. commerce in its recent responses to Plaintiffs’
`
`Requests for Admissions:
`
`Defendants ADMIT that NHK Spring Co., Ltd. entered a guilty plea
`to the charge of “participating in a conspiracy to suppress and
`eliminate competition by fixing prices for hard disk drive suspension
`assemblies . . . sold in the United States and elsewhere.” (Plea
`Agreement at ¶2.) Defendants further ADMIT that “[d]uring the
`relevant period, the conspiracy involved and had a direct, substantial,
`and reasonably foreseeable effect on interstate and import trade and
`commerce.”
`
`11.
`
`TDK admitted that it participated in the conspiracy and that the conspiracy affected
`
`U.S. commerce, when it applied for leniency with the DOJ on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
`
`pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (“ACPERA”),
`
`Public Law 108-237. To enter into the DOJ’s leniency program, TDK, like all other leniency
`
`applicants, was required to “report to the Antitrust Division . . . activity or other conduct
`
`constituting a criminal violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,” which requires that the activity
`
`
`4 Japanese Manufacturer Agrees to Plead Guilty to Fixing Prices for Suspension Assemblies
`Used in Hard Disk Drives, DOJ (Jul. 29, 2019), available at
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/japanese-manufacturer-agrees-plead-guilty-fixing-prices-
`suspension-assemblies-used-hard-disk.
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 7 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`affected U.S. commerce.5
`
`12.
`
` Plaintiffs and the End-User Classes they represent are limited to purchasers of three
`
`product types: (1) personal HDD storage devices, (2) enterprise HDD storage systems, and (3)
`
`desktop and portable computers—each of which contain multiple suspension assemblies. Personal
`
`HDD storage devices and enterprise HDD storage systems (described in more detail below) are
`
`collectively referred herein as “Standalone Storage Devices.” Desktop and portable computers are
`
`referred to herein as “Computers.”
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities who, during the period from
`
`January 1, 2003 through at least May 2016 (the “Class Period”),6 indirectly purchased Standalone
`
`Storage Devices or Computers, not for resale, which included HDD suspension assemblies that
`
`were manufactured or sold by Defendants, any current or former subsidiary of Defendants, or any
`
`co-conspirator of Defendants.
`
`14.
`
`In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities who, during
`
`the Class Period, indirectly purchased Standalone Storage Devices, not for resale, which included
`
`HDD suspension assemblies that were manufactured or sold by Defendants, any current or former
`
`subsidiary of Defendants, or any co-conspirator of Defendants.
`
`15.
`
`Through the conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators unreasonably
`
`restrained interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of state antitrust, unfair
`
`competition, and consumer protection laws, and the common law of unjust enrichment. As a direct
`
`and proximate result of Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the
`
`Classes paid more during the Class Period for HDD suspension assemblies than they otherwise
`
`would have paid in a competitive market, and have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business
`
`
`5 See Model Corporate Conditional Leniency Letter, available at
`https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1112911/download; see also Frequently Asked Questions
`About the Antitrust Division’s Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters, available at
`https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/926521/download (“Q. Does a leniency applicant have to
`admit to a criminal violation of the antitrust laws before receiving a conditional leniency letter?
`A. Yes. . . . , the applicant must admit its participation in a criminal antitrust violation[.]”).
`6 Plaintiffs reserve the right to extend the Class Period consistent with discovery including to the
`date when the effects of the conspiracy ceased to impact the Classes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 8 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`or property.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action under state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer
`
`protection and unjust enrichment laws, and seek to obtain restitution, recover damages and secure
`
`other relief against Defendants for violations of those state laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also
`
`seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses.
`
`17.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), in that
`
`this is a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive
`
`of interests and costs, and in which some members of the proposed Classes are citizens of a state
`
`different from some Defendants.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c), and (d),
`
`because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, a
`
`substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce discussed below has been carried
`
`out in this District, and one or more Defendants reside, are licensed to do business in, are doing
`
`business in, had agents in, or are found or transact business in this District.
`
`19.
`
`On October 8, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)
`
`centralized several related actions pertaining to the conspiracy alleged herein in this District before
`
`the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney as In re Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust
`
`Litigation, MDL. No. 2918.
`
`20.
`
`This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendants because each, either
`
`directly or through the ownership and/or control of its subsidiaries, inter alia: (a) transacted
`
`business in the United States, including in this District; (b) directly or indirectly sold or marketed
`
`substantial quantities of HDD suspension assemblies throughout the United States as a whole,
`
`including in this District; (c) had substantial aggregate contacts with the United States, including
`
`in this District; or (d) engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy that was directed at, and had a
`
`direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable and intended effect of causing injury to, the business or
`
`property of persons and entities residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United
`
`States, including in this District. Defendants also conduct business throughout the United States,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 9 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`including in this District, and they have purposefully availed themselves of the laws of the United
`
`States.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants’ collusive conduct was intended to, and did, cause injury to Plaintiffs
`
`and the Classes, who purchased Standalone Storage Devices or Computers containing HDD
`
`suspension assemblies manufactured and sold by Defendants, any current or former subsidiary of
`
`Defendants, or any co-conspirator of Defendants. Defendants expressly aimed their conspiracy at
`
`the U.S. marketplace and their collusive conduct has resulted in an adverse effect on purchasers of
`
`HDDs in each state identified in this Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, NHK Spring, NHK International, NHK Thailand, NAT Dong Guan, and
`
`NAT H.K. have subjected themselves to this Court’s jurisdiction through the cooperation
`
`provisions of NHK Spring’s plea agreement in its criminal case. Those provisions require NHK
`
`Spring and “its subsidiaries that are engaged in the production or sale of HDD suspension
`
`assemblies” to cooperate fully, truthfully, and continuously by, among other things, producing
`
`documents, witnesses, and testimony in the United States, in exchange for limitations on further
`
`criminal prosecutions of those companies.”7
`
`23.
`
`This Court already has determined that SAE is subject to the Court’s personal
`
`jurisdiction.8 TDK, MPT, Magnecomp, SAE, and HTI also have subjected themselves to this
`
`Court’s jurisdiction by seeking leniency from the DOJ under the Antitrust Criminal Penalty
`
`Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (“ACPERA”), Public Law 108-237. TDK has entered into
`
`an antitrust leniency agreement with the DOJ on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries including all
`
`named Defendants in this paragraph. Under ACPERA, an antitrust leniency applicant must provide
`
`cooperation to plaintiffs in any civil action alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act or
`
`any similar State law, including, among other things, providing a full account of all relevant facts
`
`known to the applicant, producing all relevant documents or other items wherever they are located,
`
`
`7 Rule 11 Plea Agreement at ¶¶ 12-15, United States v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-cr-20503
`(E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2019).
`8 Order Denying Defendant SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaints for Lack
`of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 261).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 10 of 125
`
`
`
`and using best efforts to secure and facilitate complete and truthful interviews, depositions, or
`
`testimony at trial or other court proceedings from covered cooperating individuals.9 The Court has
`
`the authority to determine whether an antitrust leniency applicant has provided timely, satisfactory
`
`cooperation with respect to this litigation.10
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`A. Plaintiffs
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Dustin Lancaster is a citizen of Arkansas. During the Class Period, he
`
`purchased in Arkansas at least one HP Pavilion G6 notebook computer with 500GB HDD from
`
`Best Buy. The HDD purchased by Lancaster contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured
`
`or sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged
`
`herein.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Jonathan Rizzo is a citizen of Arizona. During the Class Period, he
`
`purchased in Arizona at least two 1TB Western Digital My Book external HDD from Fry’s
`
`Electronics, three 2TB Hitachi internal HDD from Newegg.com, and one 320GB Hitachi internal
`
`HDD from Ibuypower.com. The HDDs purchased by Rizzo contained HDD suspension assemblies
`
`manufactured or sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful
`
`conduct alleged herein.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Joanna Katcher is a citizen of California. During the Class Period, she
`
`purchased in California at least one Glyph Technologies external 1TB HDD from Amazon.com.
`
`The HDD purchased by Katcher contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by
`
`at least one Defendant, and she suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Rhonda Glover is a citizen of California. During the Class Period, she
`
`purchased in California at least one Apple Macintosh MacBook Pro laptop computer with 500GB
`
`HDD from Apple Store. The HDD purchased by Glover contained HDD suspension assemblies
`
`manufactured or sold by at least one Defendant, and she suffered injury as a result of the unlawful
`
`
`9 Public Law 108-237, § 213(a)–(b).
`10 Id. § 213(b)
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 11 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`conduct alleged herein.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff James Walnum is a citizen of California. During the Class Period, he
`
`purchased in California at least one Apple MacBook Pro laptop computer with 320GB HDD and
`
`one Western Digital My Passport for Mac Portable 2TB external HDD, both from Best Buy. The
`
`HDDs purchased by Walnum contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by at
`
`least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Timothy A. St. Cyr is a citizen of Minnesota. During the Class Period and
`
`while residing in California, he purchased in California at least one Dell XPS L702X laptop
`
`computer with 750GB HDD from Dell.com. The HDD purchased by St. Cyr contained HDD
`
`suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a
`
`result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff David Lietz is a citizen of the District of Columbia. During the Class
`
`Period, he purchased in the District of Columbia at least one Dell Vostro A860 laptop computer
`
`with 160GB HDD and one Dell Vostro 3550 laptop computer containing 320GB HDD, both from
`
`Dell.com. The HDDs purchased by Lietz contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or
`
`sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged
`
`herein.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff John Hinshaw is a citizen of District of Columbia. During the Class Period,
`
`he purchased in District of Columbia at least one 4TB Seagate Backup Plus portable HDD from
`
`Staples. The HDD purchased by Hinshaw contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or
`
`sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged
`
`herein.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff Jeffrey Greenfield is a citizen of Florida. During the Class Period, he
`
`purchased in Florida at least one Toshiba Satellite P855-S5200 laptop containing 500GB HDD
`
`from Best Buy, a SimpleTech Simple Drive 1TB external HDD from Costco, a Toshiba V63700-
`
`B 750GB external HDD from Costco, and a Western Digital My Cloud 1TB external HDD from
`
`Westerndigital.com. The HDDs purchased by Greenfield contained HDD suspension assemblies
`
`manufactured or sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`END-USER PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02918-MMC Document 693 Filed 10/28/22 Page 12 of 125
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`conduct alleged herein.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Ted Ingber is a citizen of Florida. During the Class Period, he purchased in
`
`Florida at least one Hewlett Packard Envy all-in-one desktop PC with 320GB HDD from Best Buy.
`
`The HDD purchased by Ingber contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by at
`
`least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Harley Oda is a citizen of Hawaii. During the Class Period, he purchased
`
`in Hawaii at least one 1TB Seagate ST1000DM003 internal HDD for desktop and a 1TB Western
`
`Digital My Passport Ultra 1TB external HDD, both from Best Buy. The HDDs purchased by Oda
`
`contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by at least one Defendant, and he
`
`suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Benjamin Allen is a citizen of Iowa. During the Class Period, he purchased
`
`in Iowa at least one Apple MacBook Pro laptop computer containing 120GB Hitachi Hard Drive
`
`from Best Buy, one 1 TB Western Digital My Book Pro Edition external HDD, and one 1TB
`
`Western Digital My Book Essential external HDD. The HDDs purchased by Allen contained HDD
`
`suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by at least one Defendant, and he suffered injury as a
`
`result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Jeeyoon Lee is a citizen of Kansas. During the Class Period, she purchased
`
`in Kansas at least one Seagate 1TB Backup Plus Portable Drive from Best Buy. The HDD
`
`purchased by Lee contained HDD suspension assemblies manufactured or sold by at least one
`
`Defendant, and she suffered injury as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged