DONNA M. RYU, Magistrate Judge.
TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE:
WHEREAS, the above-captioned coordinated proceedings are pending before this Court;
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct concerning the pricing of passenger fares and fuel surcharges on routes between the U.S. and Asia/Oceania;
WHEREAS, discovery in the above-captioned coordinated proceedings is currently ongoing and has a deadline of completion of January 31, 2014;
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the purposes of justice and for the due determination of the matters in dispute between the parties that the following person should be examined as a witness upon oath touching such matters, namely Chan Seck Fun, Blk 5000J #23-44 Marine Parade Road, Singapore (449291), and it appears that such witness is resident within your jurisdiction:
The United States District Court Northern District of California presents its compliments to the Supreme Court of Singapore, and requests international assistance to compel testimony to be used in a civil proceeding before this Court in the above-captioned matter.
This Court requests, for the reasons previously stated, that the Supreme Court of Singapore summon Chan Seck Fun, Blk 5000J #23-44 Marine Parade Road, Singapore (449291), to attend at such time and place as you shall appoint, if possible, prior to January 31, 2014, before you or such other person as according to your procedure is competent to take the examination of witnesses, and that you will cause such witness to be examined orally on the interrogatories and topics which are attached to this letter of request as
In addition, this Courts requests that you will permit the agents of both the plaintiffs and defendants to examine upon interrogatories and oral examination on the interrogatories and topics which are attached to this letter of request as
In addition, this Courts requests that you will be pleased to cause the evidence of the said witnesses (and the answers of the said witnesses and all additional oral questions, whether on examination, cross-examination or re-examination) to be reduced into writing and all books, letters, papers and documents produced on such examination to be duly marked for identification, and that you will be further pleased to authenticate such examination by the seal of your tribunal or in such other way as is in accordance with your procedure and to return it together with the interrogatories and cross-interrogatories and a note of the charges and expenses payable in respect of the execution of this request through the counsel from whom the same was received for transmission to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California.
In addition, this Court requests that you will cause the agents of the parties appointed to be informed of the date and place where the examination is to take place. Their contact information is as follows:
Plaintiffs Micah Abrams, Meor Adlin, Franklyn Ajaye, Andrew Barton, Brenden G. Maloof, Rachel Diller, Scott Frederick, David Kuo, Dickson Leung, Donald Wortman, Harley Oda, Roy Onomura, Shinsuke Kobayashi, Patricia Lee, Nancy Kajiyama, on her own behalf and on behalf of Noboru Kajiyama [deceased], Della Ewing Chow, James Kawaguchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the complaint in this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, (15 U.S.C. §26). The Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this matter seeks to obtain injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §1) and to recover damages and/or restitution based on claims that Defendants Air France, Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, China Airlines, Eva Airways, Japan Airlines International, KLM Royal Dutch Airline, Malaysia Airlines, Malaysian Airline System Berhad, Philippine Airlines, Inc., Qantas Airways, Ltd., Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, United Airlines, and Vietnam Airlines engaged in anticompetitive conduct concerning the pricing of passenger fares and fuel surcharges on routes between the U.S. and Asia/Oceania from approximately January 2000 through at least July 2011 that caused plaintiffs and individuals similarly situated to pay artificially high and non-competitive prices for tickets for air passenger travel in the United States.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California would be willing to provide similar assistance to the Supreme Court of Singapore.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs have represented that they are willing to reimburse the Supreme Court of Singapore for costs incurred in executing this Letter Rogatory in an amount not to exceed Two Thousand dollars ($2000.00) in United States Dollars. If the costs for executing this Letter Rogatory will exceed USD $2000, please contact counsel for the Plaintiffs before exceeding this amount. Their contact information is as follows:
The Court extends to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Singapore assurances of its highest consideration.
1. What is your full name?
2. When were you employed with Singapore Airlines?
3. Were you employed with other airlines?
4. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you directly communicate with other airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
5. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you directly communicate with other airlines regarding fares?
6. Were you aware of anyone else at Singapore Airlines who directly communicates with other airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
7. Were you aware of anyone else at Singapore Airlines who directly communicates with other airlines regarding fares?
8. Did Singapore Airlines coordinate with other airlines regarding whether to impose fuel surcharges?
9. Did Singapore Airlines coordinate with other airlines regarding the amount of fuel surcharges to be imposed on any given flight?
10. Did Singapore Airlines coordinate with other airlines regarding the amount of fares to be charged for any given flight?
11. Did Singapore Airlines agree with other airlines to raise fuel surcharges if another airline raised their fuel surcharge?
12. Did Singapore Airlines agree with other airlines to raise fares if another airline raised their fares?
13. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Cathay Pacific Airways regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Cathay Pacific participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
c. How did these communications take place? I.E. by telephone, over email, in person, facsimile?
d. When did these communications take place?
e. What was communicated?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with Cathay Pacific Airways to impose fuel surcharges if Cathay Pacific Airways raised their fuel surcharge?
14. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Cathay Pacific Airways regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Cathay Pacific participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
15. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with All Nippon Airways regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who All Nippon Airways participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with All Nippon Airways to impose fuel surcharges if All Nippon Airways raised their fuel surcharge?
16. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with All Nippon Airways regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at All Nippon Airways participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
17. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with China Airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who China Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with China Airlines to impose fuel surcharges if China Airlines raised their fuel surcharge?
18. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with China Airlines regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at China Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
19. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Malaysia Airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who Malaysia Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
20. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Malaysia Airlines regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Malaysia Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
21. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Philippine Airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who Philippine Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with Philippine Airlines to impose fuel surcharges if Philippine Airlines raised their fuel surcharge?
22. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Philippine Airlines regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Philippine Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
23. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Thai Airways regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who Thai Airways participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with Thai Airways to impose fuel surcharges if Thai Airways raised their fuel surcharge?
24. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Thai Airways regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Thai Airways participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
25. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Vietnam Airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who Vietnam Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with Vietnam Airlines to impose fuel surcharges if Vietnam Airways raised their fuel surcharge?
26. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Vietnam Airlines regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Vietnam Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
27. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Japan Airlines regarding fuel surcharges?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who Japan Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
f. Did Singapore Airlines agree with Japan Airlines to impose fuel surcharges if Japan Airlines raised their fuel surcharge?
28. When you were employed at Singapore Airlines, did you or anyone who reported to you communicate with Japan Airlines regarding fares?
a. If yes, who at Singapore Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
b. If yes, who at Japan Airlines participated in these communications? What were their names and titles?
29. With respect to each document identified in
h. Please explain the roles of the other individuals named in this document at the time this document originated.
(1) What company did each such individual work for?
(2) Was the company a competitor of SIA?
(3) What position did each such individual hold and what were his or her responsibilities?
(4) What was your relationship with each such individual?
(5) How frequently did you communicate with each such individual?
(6) How did you communicate with him or her, e.g., letter, email, telephone, in person, etc.
i. Were there any follow-up communications, e.g., letter, email, telephone, in person, etc., to this document?
j. Did you discuss this document with anyone at SIA?
(1) If yes, with whom (name, position, responsibilities)?
(2) If yes, when?
(3) If yes, please describe your discussions.
(4) If yes, did you or anyone at SIA come to any conclusions?
k. Did you discuss this document with anyone outside of SIA?
(1) If yes, with whom (name, company, position, responsibilities)?
(2) If yes, when?
(3) If yes, please describe your discussions.
(4) If yes, did you come to any agreement regarding the matters described in the document?
(5) Did you come to any agreement regarding future conduct of SIA and/or any competitor?
Exhibit 1 is a copy of an email dated March 5, 2003 from Chan Seck Fun to Ee Kim Lye, among others, (and related emails and attachments) regarding imposing fuel surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000123186 - SIA_11_000123190.
Exhibit 2 is a copy of minutes from the August 5, 2003 Board of Airline Representatives Hong Kong meeting, produced by Cathay Pacific and identified as CXACMDL000004180 - CXACMDL000004186.
Exhibit 3 is a copy of an email dated May 19, 2004 from Kaori Noma to Ee Kim Lye, among others, (and related emails) regarding fuel prices and surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000114045 - SIA_11_000114048.
Exhibit 4 is a copy of minutes from the November 19, 2003 Board of Airline Representatives Hong Kong meeting, produced by Cathay Pacific and identified as CXTPAC-000664227 - CXTPAC-000664233.
Exhibit 5 is a copy of minutes from the May 21, 2004 Board of Airline Representatives Hong Kong meeting, produced by Cathay Pacific and identified as CXTPAC-000664258 - CXTPAC-000664265.
Exhibit 6 is a copy of an email dated June 7, 2004 from Ee Kim Lye to Paakkeat Ong (and related emails) regarding fuel surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000206784 - SIA_11_000206785.
Exhibit 7 is a copy of an email dated May 12, 2004 from Ee Kim Lye to Chan Seck Fun regarding fare increases and fuel prices, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000209349.
Exhibit 8 is a copy of an email dated March 10, 2000 from Julie Yang to Ee Kim Lye, among others, (and related emails) regarding fuel surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000229584 - SIA_11_000229586.
Exhibit 9 is a copy of an email dated May 31, 2004 from Chan Seck Fun to Ivan Wong, among others, (and related emails) regarding imposing fuel surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000113253.
Exhibit 10 is a copy of an email dated April 11, 2003 from Ee Kim Lye to Chan Seck Fun (and related emails) regarding fare increases and fuel prices, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000125898.
Exhibit 11 is a copy of an email dated December 30, 2003 from Chan Seck Fun to Edmond Chiu, among others, (and related emails) regarding insurance surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000182728 - SIA_11_000182729.
Exhibit 12 is a copy of an email dated October 13, 2005 from Ee Kim Lye to Chan Seck Fun, among others, (and related emails) regarding fares, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000018558 - SIA_11_000018560.
Exhibit 13 is a copy of an email dated December 23, 2003 from Chan Seck Fun to Rocky Kwok, among others, (and related emails) regarding insurance surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000062520.
Exhibit 14 is a copy of an email dated February 6, 2004 from Victoria Wong to Constance Wong, among others, (and related emails) regarding insurance surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000063986 - SIA_11_000063995.
Exhibit 15 is a copy of an email dated January 7, 2004 from Ee Kim Lye to Phillip Goh among others, (and related emails) regarding insurance surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000127121 - SIA_11_000127124.
Exhibit 16 is a copy of an email dated January 12, 2004 from Ee Kim Lye to Philip Goh, among others, (and related emails) regarding insurance surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000207456 - SIA_11_000207460.
Exhibit 17 is a copy of an email dated June 9, 2004 from Chan Seck Fun to Ee Kim Lye (and related emails) regarding fuel surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000199085.
Exhibit 18 is a copy of an email dated June 2, 2004 from Chan Seck Fun to Ee Kim Lye (and related emails and attachments) regarding fuel surcharges, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000199091 - SIA_11_000199092.
Exhibit 19 is a copy of an email dated March 10, 2000 from Julie Yang to Ee Kim Lye, among others, (and related emails) regarding fares, produced by SIA and identified as SIA_11_000229584 - SIA_11_000229586.