$330 Million Antitrust Win with Bill Price and Steig Olson

John is joined by Bill Price, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Steig Olson, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the landmark $110 million jury verdict, trebled to $330 million under antitrust law, Bill and Steig recently won in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The award will be increased to compensate for the costs and attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiff. The dispute arose when Commercial Metals, a Texas-based competitor of Pacific Steel, purchased and shut down California’s only rebar mill, creating a regional monopoly in the rebar market—a critical component in construction. Pacific Steel planned to disrupt this monopoly by building a state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly steel mill using advanced Italian technology. However, Commercial Metals allegedly pressured the Italian supplier to block plaintiff Pacific Steel from accessing the necessary technology by creating a 500-mile radius “exclusivity” zone for the Italian technology around the steel mill they bought and shut down. Victory at trial hinged on simplifying a complex antitrust narrative into a clear, compelling story. Bill and Steig narrowed their case by focusing on the core issues, cutting extraneous expert testimony to streamline the presentation. They used an adverse witness, the former CEO of Commercial Metals, to expose the company's internal communications, which highlighted its intent to maintain market dominance by obstructing Pacific Steel's plans. Bill’s cross-examinations proved pivotal in exposing contradictions and discrediting the defendants’ narrative. The defendants primarily argued that the relevant market extended beyond California and that their exclusivity agreements were standard competitive practices. However, the jury found these defenses unconvincing, especially in light of evidence of deliberate efforts to suppress local competition and inflate prices. They also discuss the skillful collaboration between Steig, a rising young trial attorney, and Bill, a seasoned litigator renowned for his many trial victories.  This case underscores the importance of strategic focus, persuasive storytelling, and adaptability in high-stakes litigation.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Transcript

LD_BILL AND STEIG

[00:00:00] JOHN QUINN: This is John Quinn, and this is Law Disrupted. Today, we are talking with two of my Quinn Emanuel partners, Bill Price and Stig Olson. Now, Bill Price is based in our Los Angeles office, and he's actually a neighbor of mine, in addition. Stig is in our New York office. And the reason we're talking to them is that they just retrieved a Really remarkable jury verdict in San Francisco in an antitrust case.

The verdict was 110 million dollars and under the law it's automatically, that verdict is automatically trebled. That means it automatically goes to three hundred and 30 million dollars and the defendants also have to pay costs and attorney's fees. So First let me say uh, congratulations to both of you gentlemen.

Congratulations Stig, I know there's quite a backstory here I know that originally you pitched the client on this case And we didn't get the case But you didn't give up you stayed in contact Uh, and eventually they saw the light And that you got to try this case and I heard great things from Bill about your work and we want to talk about that and hearing great things about your work from Bill Price says a lot because, because Bill Price is for my money and I think the, uh, statistics bear it out and Bill put your hands over your ears now is the most, the most successful Business jury trial lawyer practicing in the world.

I mean, Bill tried like 38, 39 cases in a row before he lost one. We kept giving him the harder and harder cases. People came to him with the hardest cases and Bill won the hardest cases until I mean, ultimately there were a couple of. Uh, you know, like there was a criminal case I know recently in the Eastern District of New York, where basically our, our client was on tape and the prosecution just had to press, you know, play, uh, and that was pretty hard to cross even Bill Price couldn't cross examine the recording device, but I've lost track of how many nine figure verdicts Bill Price has achieved.

This is another notch and on the defense side he's achieved equally remarkable results steve I don't know if you remember a case where we represented micron Yeah Up in san francisco also an antitrust case Bill remind me who the plaintiff on that was Rambus rambus, so rambus another antitrust case this time on the defense side and in that case The jury was instructed as was the case that there was in fact a criminal conspiracy There was in fact a criminal antitrust conspiracy And people had admitted to it now call your first witness That trial lasted I think three months bill About three months.

Yep, about three months. The jury was out. This never happens. The jury was out a month No, they were out. Yeah eight weeks 

[00:03:23] BILL PRICE: Eight weeks. 

[00:03:24] JOHN QUINN: Yeah, this is incredible. It wasn't for the food, you know, it wasn't for the lunches You know bill gave him a lot to think about and ended up being a defense verdict So, um, and we want to get to talking to you about this case Bill, so, so, uh, Stig, this is why I say, when Bill said great things about your work, and I don't think you have, uh, to my knowledge, don't have a long string of, uh, jury trial, uh, verdicts under your belt, and he said, he told me that the voir dire you did, which was Apparently, the first war you had done jury selection, he said, was really remarkable.

Um, it was terrific. So congratulations on that, but I, I sympathize with you also Stig because I have tried many cases with Bill Price and I know what it's like, what happens is this, you think you've listened, you think you've learned, you come up with a great idea and you said, Bill, Bill, this is what I'm going to do, or this is what we have to do and Bill is so prescriptive, you know, whatever.

Yeah. Messiness he may have in other areas of his life. Bill is utterly prescriptive, clear vision. No, that's not how you do that. We're gonna do this. Did you have those moments, Steve?

[00:04:39] STEIG OLSON: Uh, yeah, pretty much. But, you know, I welcome them. I mean, that was what was so great about doing this with Bill, is that, to get that type of feedback.

And like you're saying, you know when you get feedback like that from Bill, you just trust it. Yeah. I mean, I just followed it, you know, without question. And that was, you know, one of the real pleasures of this. 

[00:04:58] JOHN QUINN: Well, I just, I just hope one day I get to the point where he said, John, that's right. That's exactly how we should do.

[00:05:05] BILL PRICE: I said that to John. I said that to Steve a lot. I mean, he had, he had incredible instincts. I mean, I was, he was, he's, he's, you know, one of the top trial lawyers in the country as far as I'm concerned. All right, thank you.

[00:05:19] JOHN QUINN: Okay. Well, big, big accolades all around, uh, but I just, I mean, I, I am a huge, uh, yeah.

Bill Price fan, and I think, uh, anybody who has Bill, uh, I mean, he shifts the scales, uh, when he's on a case. But, Stig, tell us about this case. Tell us about the background, how it came to you.

[00:05:40] STEIG OLSON: Yeah. Yeah, it was really memorable for me, actually, because, um, I pitched this case right at the beginning of COVID.

Um, you know, the key events happened in this case in, like, June, July 2020. And then our client Pacific steel ended up immediately, you know, thinking they were wronged and wanting counsel and interviewed me. I remember it was 1 of those coven zoom things where people are sitting like, empty rooms. They don't even have offices yet.

You know. And, um, interviewed us early on and ended up hiring a plaintiff's firm that was much cheaper than us to do most of the litigation, but you know, we stayed in touch and advise in the background. They brought us in for trial. 

[00:06:23] JOHN QUINN: Did you know that was going to happen or that you were all you were staying in touch just in the hopes that their views might change and might bring you in?

[00:06:31] STEIG OLSON: Yeah, that was it. I didn't know it was going to happen. I hoped it would happen. Um, the, you know, the, the originally, if I'm getting this right, the judge granted the motion to dismiss knocking out the case. Uh, when the, when this other plans firm was handling it, code Milstein, who we, you know, who worked with us at trial too.

So, at that time, Pacific steel got back in touch with me and asked for us to advise on how to kind of resurrect the case, which was a good sign. Um, and then we, I just stayed in touch, you know, stayed in touch and tried to be there and, and, uh, be a presence. And then, as they got to trial, I was going to trial, he reached back out and, uh, you know, I was able to mention bill.

And of course, as you were, for reasons you were just saying, that's, that's quite a selling point. You know, and then I think Bill, you independently knew somebody who knew the client or something like that. And they interviewed you or something like that. 

[00:07:23] BILL PRICE: Yeah, well, well, I interviewed was in house counsel and with the CEO, Eric Benson separately 1 with just with in house and 1 with both.

And I thought we had a good chance of getting it. And then I, uh, it turns out, uh, Eric Benson was, uh, walking on the beach in front of his, his home and ran into a guy, Don Rosenberg, who, uh, was general counsel of Qualcomm and also previously of IBM and knows our firm well and, and was one of Bill Urquhart's best friends.

And Eric just happened to mention to, uh, to Don, Hey, I'm thinking of hiring Quinn Emanuel and this guy, Bill Price, you know, just to do a trial for me. And, uh, I, like I said, I thought we had it pretty much in the bag by then, but I guess Eric was still kind of pondering it. And Don Rosenberg said, Oh my God, I mean, you know, Bill Urquhart was one of my best friends and, and he, and he spoke incredibly highly of Bill Price.

So he was one of the best in the country and you should And so, uh, the, uh, late great. Bill Urquhart had a role in an escape. 

[00:08:26] JOHN QUINN: We continue to be blessed by Bill. It sounds like maybe a little bit of serendipity, uh, there on the beach may have cemented the, the deal that perhaps Stig already had almost to the, uh, over the touchdown line.

But tell us about the facts of the case. 

[00:08:41] STEIG OLSON: Yeah, yeah, so it's a really interesting case. It's a, it's a really cool antitrust case. Um, it involves, The rebar market and rebar, you know, I didn't know this. A lot of people do, but rebar is a steel reinforcing bar that's used in virtually all construction projects anywhere.

There's concrete inside the concrete. There are these steel reinforcing bars that. That work really well with the concrete, so it doesn't it doesn't break basically under pressure. So, steel rebar is huge part of construction and used California is 1 of the biggest places in the whole world that relies on access to steel rebar for construction, but.

For a long time, there was only 1 steel mill in the entire state of California that actually made steel ruby bar. Um, and it made it using a kind of, uh, slightly outdated technology. You know, it's interesting, Bill and I could now give you the whole history of, of how, uh, steel mills operate and how the technology has evolved.

But. There was one and it was, it was near, um, it was in Rancho Cucamonga, California made steel rebar. So, and our client, Pacific Steel, is basically a company that buys steel rebar and then takes it to the construction project and installs it, you know, and that might involve cutting it, you know, bending it, making it exactly right for whatever the construction project is, whether it's a bridge or a road or a building or a stadium or anything.

So that's what they did. So they relied on the supply of rebar, but there was only one place in California that made it. And then what happened is in around 2018, the defendant here named commercial metals, which is a Texas based steel company. It's been around like a hundred years or something. Went and bought that mill in Rancho Cucamonga, California, and then pretty quickly shut it down, you know, laying off all the workers, closing down the mill.

Catch and kill, catch and kill. Yeah, yeah, pretty much. Um, and they, you know, they, they had a rebar mill in Arizona and it was now the closest one to California. So basically they were in a great position because people, everyone in California, you know, the closest place they could go to get. Steel rebar was this mill in Arizona and they actually commercial metals decided was going to build another mill in Arizona to Feed into California, but charge pretty high prices because rebar is hard, uh expensive to transport because very heavy So, um, our client decided, well, they're in, you know, this was a huge problem.

So they decided they were going to build a steel rebar mill in California and they were going to use the latest technology in the industry. And it's, it's this company in Italy named Danielli has totally revolutionized the steel rebar industry with incredible technological developments. That make it extremely environmentally friendly.

It's built rebar is now made entirely from scrap metal. And there's no, like, need to use natural gas or any greenhouse gases or anything. It's very efficient, very, um. Environmentally responsible, so they were going to use that to our clients and steel is going to use Danielli's technology to build the mill in California.

And this technology is so revolutionary. Every new mill that's been built since. The mid 1990s has used this Danielli Italian new technology, which is called my technology. 

[00:12:10] JOHN QUINN: Okay, just to set the stage. You have this company that has a rebar mill in Arizona. There was one in Rancho Cucamonga. They bought it, shut it down.

Yeah, they probably, you know, in this area that they were looking to be the monopolist, they thought they'd set themselves up in that position, but our client was going to saw an opportunity, was going to build a new mill using the state of the art technology. Exactly. Exactly. 

[00:12:38] STEIG OLSON: So, um, our, our company, our client was very far along in that process, negotiating, you know, getting drafts of contracts, getting pricing, you know, getting the specifications.

This, you know, they hired a seasoned steel executive who moved all the way from Florida to California to lead the operations really far along working with this Italian company, getting close to signing the contract. But they had issued a press release in the industry when they hired this steel executive.

And the defendant commercial metals basically saw that press release and, you know, we saw the internal panic. It caused which we use the trial. There's some pretty colorful language. Um, so they went basically out to that Italian company who they had hired a couple of times in the past. And pressured them and basically paid them off.

Tens of millions of dollars to agree not to sell us a mill in California. Yeah. Not to sell us the technology and to block us basically from building Any steel mill using this technology in california for six years. And so You know from the standpoint of civic steel this danielle company just went dark Kind of disappeared when they popped up.

They're like, sorry, we can't sell you a mill anymore. You're out of luck, right? And that was the case and that's that happened, you know, basically in in june july 2020 And and I was talking to them, you know a month later basically 

[00:14:05] JOHN QUINN: So in the event, what, what was the defense to this? Was it, uh, this market definition defense?

So did they deny that they actually did these things or 

[00:14:14] STEIG OLSON: what? No, it's a good, I mean, It was very technical, anti trusty defenses, which, you know, maybe they got a little carried away with and failed to recognize that those might not fly with the jury. Um, so it was, I think, would you say, Bill, their lead defense was market definition?

[00:14:33] BILL PRICE: Yeah, their lead defense was market definition, but they also had, I mean, they knew enough to say, to know they had to present themselves as being, you know, as being reasonable. And so they were building a mill at the same time using Danielli. They had built other Danielli mills. They were the first ever in the US to build a Danielli mill.

So they were innovators. Look, we're innovating and when we build these new mills with new technology, we ask for and get an exclusionary period where people can't build around, you know, our mill. Uh, and they've done that for a number of years and it, you know, may have made sense back in 2005, for example, when they built the first one, it may have made sense when they built the first one, possibly.

Yeah. Yeah. But here we are, you know, in, in, in 2020, they're doing a Danielli mill. They're doing it. Another mill from Danielli for a different product altogether, which is the first time that had been done. And their deal with Danielli was basically agreed to internal document said, okay, we've got a deal.

Then they heard about us and they went to Danielli and said, no, no, no, no, no, you can't build them a mill, which has been around now for decades, right? Uh, in California, and they create this exclusivity zone around the mill. Until they shut down in California. 

[00:15:51] STEIG OLSON: In Rancho Cucamonga, I should have mentioned that that that that was a thing that kind of looked bad for them.

They put this exclusivity zone for 6 years around the middle that in California that they had bought and it shut down. So, it was basically around an Amazon warehouse. 

[00:16:04] JOHN QUINN: So, so where was our clients mill going to be? 

[00:16:08] STEIG OLSON: Pretty close. It's in Mojave, um, the Mojave, California, which is like, you know, there's like a desert region, Mojave Desert.

We've all heard of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, 

[00:16:19] BILL PRICE: yeah, but but importantly, I mean, so they put on what this is saying and and they had a story to tell it was their main story. We're the good guys and they're expert. They're anti trust experts. The two main defenses were, we've got the market wrong. Most rebars bought outside of California.

In fact, from as far away as Vietnam, uh, and that, you know, they were entitled to an exclusionary zone for a certain period of years because they, uh, you know, they're innovators and they're pro competitive benefits to that because they're taking all these, these risks. So those were the two main defenses.

[00:16:52] JOHN QUINN: On the face of it, I mean, those sound, have a certain amount of plausibility. Yeah, Bill said them better than I could have. 

[00:17:01] STEIG OLSON: The market definition one, you know, I think is, was a little tough, but they, yeah, they make the point that, well, people in California do actually buy rebar from outside of California, so how could the market be California?

You know, that it's, it's maybe a, has some plausible appeal on paper, but it's like the reason why people buy rebar from outside of California is because they have no choice, you know, not because there's some market that's working well, it's because they shut down the only mill in California. Oh, wait a second.

There's that. Yeah. 

[00:17:36] BILL PRICE: And what happened is, is, uh, I mean, there were a number of mills near California, you know, uh, with CMC and this other company, uh, Nucor. Um, but they had kept the prices so high that bills from way outside California were willing to sell here and take that huge transportation costs because they could still make a profit.

Uh, so, but it was a little bit complex to explain to jury, as you might imagine, when there's commodity price in California for rebar, pretty much all cells for the same price and most three bars being bought from way outside that 500 mile zone. But Uh, and so they had, you know, an expert who was very eloquent and saying, you know, obviously the market is not that 500 miles zone.

And if you look at what our plant was going to contribute to the market, which is 380, 000 tons of rebar per year, uh, that that's a drop in the bucket. It would have no effect on price. We have no effect on competition and the, and the main thing they had arguing against that were the internal documents from the defendant at the time they learned about us saying that our presence would crush the dynamics of the market.

And of course, they're the ones who drew the 500 mile radius around the mill that didn't exist, the one they'd closed. So we had good common sense responses to a fairly eloquent, you know, 

[00:18:59] JOHN QUINN: sounds like it. Well, how did, how did you present the case? What were some key decisions that you made in, in, uh, presenting the plaintiff's case, whether in terms of.

Who you called 1st or who you didn't call decisions. You made about how to put the case on. 

[00:19:16] STEIG OLSON: Yeah, I mean, I would say, you know, there were sort of 2 big decisions. I think we're really kind of key 1 is when we came in as trial counsel and looked at the case. We decided to really winnow it down to its core and, uh, trim any fluff or fat because we had a very compelling, clear narrative to tell and we don't want anything to get distracted.

We want anybody to get tripped up. So when we came into the case, we probably inherited, I don't know, Bill, just say, like, 5 or 6 experts. 

[00:19:44] BILL PRICE: Yeah. 

[00:19:45] STEIG OLSON: Who would put in reports on our side of the case, but we ended up only presenting 2 of them. And, um, so, you know, so that was, and I think that paid off for us. It was a clean, tight story.

There was a jury followed it completely. The other, the other big decision was calling an adverse witness, you know, and, and, um, and antitrust cases, you often have to do that because you have to show sort of the, what the defendant was doing behind the scenes. And you could try to have your expert get that in, but that's hard.

So you typically have to try to do it through 1 of their witnesses. So we had to do that. And we weren't in complete control over who we could call because. For whatever reason, most of the senior people involved in all of this stuff. Uh, recently retired from the company. We don't know why, but that happened.

So our 1st choice, um, they said was unavailable. So we ended up having to call the former CEO. His name was Barbara Smith, a very accomplished, impressive woman who was one of the very few women who had risen in the steel industry. She was very polished. We, of course, we hadn't been able to depose her because we weren't involved in the case.

So it was a pretty, you know, for most people, John, it would be a big risk to call that type of adverse witness. But, of course, we had Bill to, um. To put her on and I think that was a huge. I mean, our 1st, our 1st, 2 witnesses were the main 2 witnesses from the client and those went very well and we're clear and smooth.

And we think handle those. Right? But the turning point, I think, for the jury was when they saw bills adverse direct of the CEO, which, which told our story and expose, you know, some credibility problems. 

[00:21:31] JOHN QUINN: How did that go, Bill? Tell us about that. What did you have? Good controls or 

[00:21:36] BILL PRICE: what? We had no controls from the depositions.

Uh, but we had documents and we had documents, which kind of laid out what their reaction was when they learned about us and what they were saying within the company. We had, we had emails from Danielli, you know, memorializing some of the conversations they had. with people at CMC. So we had, we had those controls.

I was confident I could tell a good, clean story, basically a direct, you know, using this woman and showing the documents. Fortunately, as almost always happens, she decided to fight me on some things that were undisputed. And, uh, and, uh, and that was a lot of fun. Uh, because so we're able to reveal both that, that, you know, they, they had this plan, you know, to make sure we didn't enter the market.

So, uh, because if we did, it would crush the dynamics of the market. We got her to admit that, that, you know, her view was that increased supply would. With decreased prices, you know, which is something they're expert disagreed with under his definition of market. We got her to agree to the fact that Danielli was the, the, the best technology in the world, the most efficient and the cleanest.

Uh, we got her to admit that, uh, supply of rebar in 1 area of the country didn't really affect the price in another. Uh, again, their experts said the market is basically worldwide where she had said in calls with shareholders that, uh, you have to worry about oversupply really, because there are only two main incumbents in this market, then the new core and we've, uh, exercise discipline and making sure that there aren't market disruptions and you don't have to worry about too much supply in other areas, the geographies, because it's a very localized geography.

So we got pretty much our whole. Our whole case through her and so much. I mean, that's one of the reasons we dropped some of the experts Yeah, because we had experts on whether or not this was the technology that we had to use whether it was the best Well, she gave us that as did other witnesses 

[00:23:35] JOHN QUINN: Such a gift when the witness fights you on things the witness can't win on.

[00:23:41] STEIG OLSON: Yeah, exactly. Let me flesh that out for a moment because Bill kind of glossed over it, but it was one of the most dramatic points of the whole trial and just, you know, just something that worked incredibly well, and it was amazing to see Bill do it. But. What did happen? So, first of all, the trial day, the trial days were 830 to 130.

It was a pretty nice schedule. Really, you know, the judge has a schedule allowed jurors to have like a life too. So, you know, this was a Friday. Her 1st day on was a Friday. We're going to stop at 130. And so, I don't know, Bill, I think maybe you started only around noon. You didn't have a ton of time the 1st day.

Right? I think that's right. I got a couple hours in that day, a couple hours. 1st day. So, you obviously want to leave a Friday. At the, at the dramatic point for the jury to think about over the weekend. That's the goal, you know, and so Bill is just doing a sort of a chronological. This happened that happened thing and internally, once they found out that Pacific Steel is going to build this mill, these people drafted talking points for this executive.

To make a last minute, really heavy handed, high pressure call to Daniele about how you should drop, you know, don't go forward with this, agree to this new exclusivity in California to block Pacific Steel. And the talking points basically said that we're doing this because we want to block Pacific Steel.

I mean, they basically said that. So around like 1, you know, 10 p. m. with 20 minutes to go, Bill shows her the talking points that have been drafted for her. And I think surprising all of us, including bill, she tried to run from them and said, um, you know, those are just talk. I get talking points all the time.

That doesn't mean I actually delivered them. And that was surprising because she, I think it was her right bill. I think she memorialized the call after it happened to for the rest of her team where she. 

[00:25:39] BILL PRICE: Three days after getting the talking points addressed to her, she made the call and then sent a confirming email saying, this is what we said in the call.

And so around, yeah, it's around one 10 when she says, oh yeah, that I wouldn't necessarily say that I get those talking points all the time. You know, that wouldn't be the way I'd express it. Blah, blah, blah, blah. And I'm looking up the clock and I'm seeing it's one 10. I think, oh God, we can end on this. And so then what happened, uh, happened was she's like, Go ahead.

[00:26:07] STEIG OLSON: So basically, so then, you know, about 1 25, he shows her the memorialization, where it's now clear that she had said what she just tried to deny that she had said. And as I recall it, I won't get this verbatim bills. The last question of the day was something like. So a few minutes ago, when I asked you, if you had said that in the talking points, Why did you deny it then?

And no one remembers what she says. It doesn't matter. Yeah, 

[00:26:39] JOHN QUINN: I can, I can imagine bill. From 1 10 to 1 25, building up the importance of her statements. Yeah, this is so important and, you know, you're sure that you wouldn't have said something like this or you get these talking points and that's not something you would follow.

And I can, I can imagine just how that went. 

[00:27:02] BILL PRICE: Yeah, it was, it was extending the denials that you're making the most of the impeachment. Yeah. And then, and then the last question was again, a question, which a lot of people, you know, you'd be told not to ask if you're doing, you know, cross exam 101, cause I didn't know the answer and I didn't care what the answer was, which was basically, it was, it was, Something effective.

Then, you know, why did you go out of your way out of your way to deny that you said the exact same things that were in the talking points? And, uh, she had an answer. I think it was while I wanted to provide context or something, but no one cared. Uh, and, uh, and then the day ended and I said, I think that's a good point to end your honor.

And we ended, uh, but we had, I mean, I'll say, you know, Stig did, uh, I mean, we basically split the cross examinations and Uh, I thought we had, we won every day, which is kind of rare in trial, you know, where at the end of the day, you think, well, we won that day. We won that day. You're never sure what's going to happen in the end.

But, uh, it was a really good effort. 

[00:28:05] STEIG OLSON: Yeah, and I would say, you know, I think Bill and I, we had kind of complimentary styles and that they were a little bit different. Um, you know, Bill style is sort of more, um, almost slightly more subtle and more, um, you know, a little bit more gentle. In a way and then mine was a little bit more hard hitting, you know, I would get up and you know I've got three points.

I'm gonna go out there, you know room for brute force yeah, a little bit more brute force and I think my sense was that the jury kind of appreciated that because Just varying things up is nice, you know a little different energy here and there is nice Yeah, so I think that's true 

[00:28:45] JOHN QUINN: any other high points in the trial or decisions that were made Either by you or by the defense that you think were noteworthy or might be, um, something we can all learn from.

[00:28:57] STEIG OLSON: Well, I thought, you know, Bill, we could talk about the cross and speaking of cross, you know, 1 of the most interesting things for me where we're Bill and I had to make a strategic decision and I think it worked out well was, you know, on this cross point. You know, I think I had three crosses and I think they're all fairly effective But the last one was for commercial metals last witness So the last witness in the case who they called somewhat surprisingly this very nice older man in his maybe late 60s who in direct talked about being a grandfather and how his kids had been raised at the company and he started there in high school and He just kind of had a nice warm story and and people probably he was likable But They had him present this story about how, how commercial metals had actually invented this technology that and then went and gave it to Danielli, which I, Which was based on some document that he had not written, that someone else had written.

And they introduced it, and he kind of testified, yeah, this is true. And I knew that it wasn't true, and I knew that, um, he had no one, he hadn't written it, and I suspected he, he didn't know anything about the document until, you know, they put him up to be a witness. So, I, um, I got up and, and started pretty aggressive.

I started pretty aggressive, and, uh, I think even did something, which I don't do a lot, which is sort of like, ask the question, and he started not answering, and just interrupted, and like, yes or no, or something like that, you know? But it, but it was extremely effective, you know, on the substance because he quickly admitted that he had not seen that document before his lawyer showed it to him shortly before he was to testify.

He didn't know really which parts of it were true and which weren't. So he couldn't tell the jury which parts of his story was true and which wasn't And when I said well, then why are we even talking about this document if you don't know it's true or not? He said just because my lawyers gave it to him something like that So and that was their last witness.

So I you know, we all felt it was very Effective on the substance, but you know, then we're thinking about the closing and um, and bill was like, you know Were you too harsh? Were you too harsh? Is it possible? You offended the jury because he was a likable guy, you know so, um the way bill and I divided up the Closing it builded the opening of the closing that I was going to do the rebuttal And builded a great opening two hour long just brought everything together did it all great Then the um commercial metals lawyer, you know did a very strong closing for them, too You Like two hours just a blizzard of all sorts of arguments about why we should lose And at the end, he almost kind of baited me.

He said, okay, Mr. Olson is going to get up next and he gets to go last and I don't get to respond. And we all know he's going to be really fiery and throw a lot of mud and say all sorts of nasty things that you should just tune them out type thing. So the way it worked out, we had overnight to work on it.

Um, you know, before I had to give my rebuttal and Bill came to me and was like, you know, I just don't know if you're too harsh to make a long story Bill basically convinced me to start off my. Rebuttal by apologizing if I ever got too passionate during the case. Maybe you want to share your thinking on that.

[00:32:26] BILL PRICE: Yeah, it was, uh, so, you know, like I said, when the witnesses direct was done, he was a lovable, nice old guy, right? And, and Steve started very stern and harsh. And, and there are people in the courtroom who thought, Ooh, that might be a little bit too much. Uh, And so the people who aren't decided yet, you know, may, may think, uh, you're kind of being a jerk to them.

However, the substance got better and better. So by the end of the cross, I wasn't concerned because I think I got all these admissions. In fact, the first five slides I used in my closing were from that cross because they illustrated what the case was about, which was a narrative that was created by the lawyers, not by the witnesses.

And what Steve was able to do with that witness was after getting that admission, he then. Piggybacked. He got great admissions from the witness that helped our case. For example, that, that, that, uh, CMC, you know, had, had basically piggybacked on others technology and had benefited from others technology and, uh, and, and that they, you know, just weren't the innovative company that they were They were saying they were, uh, but, uh, so I was a little worried about that.

So I, uh, you know, so I said, look, start off by, by, cause the guy ended his closing by saying, this guy's going to get up and be mean as hell, basically is what he said. Uh, and, and I said, so get up and don't be mean, you know, say, look, I, I, you know, I'm passionate about this. And sometimes that, that kind of, uh, might've snuck through and then Steve gave.

Incredibly, uh, uh, you know, a nicely toned rebuttal, which was, you know, stern when it, stern when it had to be outraged, when it had to be, and, and, and not when it didn't have to be. I mean, it, you know, it, it may have surprised the jury. I think it actually, I think they, they really enjoyed it. Uh, it was funny.

It was, uh, it was precise. Uh, and, uh, you know, we've talked about it afterwards. I, I, in, in that situation, I would've made that witness a confederate because it was obviously that witness had been misled by his lawyers. Right. And so I would have said, look, you and I got to talk about this and really this isn't, this isn't your story.

This is the lawyer story, isn't it? Yeah. And, and, and do that. So it's not to be attacking him so much as you poor schmuck, you know, you, you know, they, they put you up here and had you say this stuff and, and you can't even tell what's true and what's not in there. Uh, but, you know, look, by that time of the trial though, And I think you and I, John, you and I have talked about this.

I think most of the jurors have made up their minds and they'll listen to each other and not so much to us, you know, when they when they deliberate and given how quickly they came back. I think by that time they knew that we were in the right. And if you, if you are in that position, you're going to enjoy the kind of cross Steve did for the first, you know, about 10, 15 minutes, maybe of the cross.

I mean, it's going to be, Oh my, this is great. You're killing that. They're getting there. Just desserts. Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, and, uh, and certainly by the time of the rebuttal, I mean, you know, they were enjoying that a lot, you know, uh, it was, it was a joy to do this. 

[00:35:29] JOHN QUINN: So you, you, you tried this case against a well known, very reputable, uh, Top law firm, Morrison Forrester.

[00:35:37] STEIG OLSON: Deckard was 

actually the lead defense. Yeah, 

forrest and forrester was involved too, but I think more like 

[00:35:41] JOHN QUINN: So two major well known law firms, yeah, did they just I mean, what's your sense did they just completely misjudge the risks here? Uh, did they make some mistakes at trial, uh, in their approach or what's your assessment?

[00:35:59] BILL PRICE: Well, they clearly misjudged the risks. Uh, they, uh, I mean, I don't know how much we can get in their settlement offers, but they were in the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very low seven figures. Uh, it, it was really like a middle finger to us and, and I thought after the first week, I, I thought for sure they would come up.

With a settlement offer. I mean, because like I said, we'd won every day of the trial at that point And we never we never got one. So they misjudged the risks. I I think You know from intellectual You know anti trust point of view. Maybe they had some uh Stories that might have some traction somewhere but not 

[00:36:40] JOHN QUINN: They might have had some academic And the trustee, as Stig says, points, but it wasn't something that they were going to be able to persuade the juror to make a decision based on 

[00:36:51] STEIG OLSON: it's exactly right.

And also, I mean, sorry, Bill, but you have to remember, you know, this case was being tried in California, you know, this case will be in tried in California before California jurors, many of whom had lived there their entire lives. And worry about the economy in california worry about jobs leaving california, you know worry about the future economic state of california And this was a defendant that had come in And shut down operating manufacturing in california laid off hundreds of people And then and then blocked a new, you know, huge economic development initiative in california That would have been great So I but it does seem like they just really didn't realize how that was going to play before a jury and I think You You know, the reality is, you know, part of the reason why I haven't done nearly as many trials as bill is, you know, antitrust trials don't happen quite as much than antitrust lawyers often can get a little lost.

In the economic issues and the academic issues about relevant market definition. The other thing I was going to say is, it is, it's a different thing to that. We came in towards the end, you know, because they had, they had had a different set of adversaries. For years, and maybe got kind of comfortable. And thought it was a little bit more predictable how trial would go and they probably had a plan that might have might have been a better plan, but us coming in with a fresh view and a real trial view.

I think they obviously did not anticipate how that was going to come across. 

[00:38:22] BILL PRICE: Yeah, it was a, it was a meandering narrative, I think, uh, for a long time, you know, and, and, uh, we, we really focused it and I'm going to go into the strategic shifts that we made in case there's a retrial, but I will say one of the fun things about this trial was, you know, that Steve was in the lead in, in making, you know, that, that, those strategic shifts.

He had a real sense of what would sell and what would not sell to a jury. Uh, and, uh, and some of those decisions, I mean, you really made this a pretty clear case for the jury. 

[00:38:57] JOHN QUINN: Thank you guys. Congratulations, uh, Stig Olson, Bill Price, fantastic antitrust verdict up in San Francisco and a great story about the trial.

Thanks for sharing that with us. Thanks, John. Thank you, John. This is John Quinn, and this has been Law Disrupted.

Thank you for listening to Law Disrupted with me, John Quinn. If you enjoyed the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on your chosen podcast app. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, you can sign up for email alerts at our website at law disrupted. fm, or follow me on X. At jbq law or at Quinn Emanuel.

Thank you for tuning in.