of what the diary means, how it was prepared, and for what it was used.
(2) Since no other source sheds light on the meaning of the diary, it is impossible to relate any individual entry in the diary to any other entry. For example, nothing in the diary indicates that the 9" T.R. price of 39,800 yen in the March 31 entry relates to the "telephone from president" entry of April 1, or the "Chairman phone call entry" of April 5, or any other entry.The attempted connection between the 9" television receiver price of 39,800 yen, in the March 31 entry, with the April 5 entry concerning the Palace Group decision on color prices is impossible, since 39,800 yen is too low a price for a color TV.
(3) The entries do not purport to have anything to do with an export conspiracy, nor do they say that there was any agreement reached in the sense of parallel pricing conduct. Consequently, the jury cannot be permitted to speculate as to what these meaningless entries refer to.
(4) Plaintiffs' contention that the March 31 and the April 1 entries indicate that Sony and Matsushita together set the price of 9 inch color transistor TV sets at 39,800 yen is clearly erroneous, since at the alleged time of the diary entries (April 1976) Sony was not exporting color TV sets. Also, the price of 39,800 yen was not comparable to Sony's prices for those models. Furthermore, the diary entries nowhere state that Sony and Matsushita fixed prices, merely that the president will inform Sony about something, and it is impossible to infer a price-fixing agreement involving Sony from these cryptic comments in the diary.
(5) It is uncontested that Mr. Tokizane never attended any of the various group meetings. Thus, any references to discussions at the Palace Group meetings are, at best, multiple hearsay.
(6) There is no showing in the diary as to what year the entries were made. References in other documents that meetings took place in 1965 does not shed light on the year that this diary was made.
(7) If the diary was necessary to Mr. Tokizane's business, it would have been written in a comprehensible manner.
We have spent much time in dealing with the diaries. This has been necessary because of the great scaffolding which plaintiffs have erected on the basis of random entries therein, a scaffolding which collapses because of the non-existence of foundation. It is time to move on to other matters and so we shall simply note that we agree with defendants' contentions and conclude that the Tokizane diary is not admissible under any of the exceptions to the hearsay rules for essentially the same reasons as the other diaries.
/ Plaintiffs make much of Mr. Tokizane's high position within Matsushita. That does not affect admissibility. This document is as cryptic as can be and we are not about to let the trier of the fact (aided of course by some helpful suggestions of their friendly plaintiffs' counsel) speculate as to what it means on the basis of selected bits and pieces.
At the hearing plaintiffs' counsel argued that even if the document was inadmissible, it would still be relied upon for "corroboration." We know of no authority for such a proposition, and suggest that it reflects the bankruptcy of plaintiffs' evidentiary case.
VIII. JFTC Testimony, DSS 58 - 74
During the Six Company proceedings, a total of 17 different witnesses testified before the JFTC Hearing Examiners.
/ The names of the witnesses are as follows:
DSS Number Witness Company Number
DSS 58 Tsuruta MEI TJ 2144-2218
DSS 59 Oshima MEI TJ 2509-2551
DSS 60 Ta Fujio MEI TJ 1468-1523
DSS 61 Tsu Fujio MEI TJ 4416-4464
DSS 62 Hirano Sanyo TJ 2014-2143
DSS 63 Yoshioka Sanyo MJ 2232-2264
DSS 64 Adachi Hitachi MJ 1893-1986
DSS 65 Yamamoto Hitachi TJ 1408-1467
DSS 66 Nishi Hitachi MJ 2652-2661
DSS 67 Okuma Melco MJ 1987-2044
DSS 68 Kihara Melco MJ 2527-2547
DSS 69 Kamakura Toshiba MJ 2044-2087
DSS 70 Yajima Toshiba MJ 2098-2160
DSS 71 Kawahara Toshiba MJ 2662-2670
DSS 72 Ogawa Sharp MJ 2161-2187
DSS 73 Ogawa Sharp MJ 2617-2632
DSS 74 Iue Sanyo MJ 2671-2678
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.