In re Telescopes Antitrust Litigation

Background

Defendant Corey Lee moved for permission to file a motion seeking partial reconsideration of the court’s earlier summary-judgment order. On April 27, 2026, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Lee. It found sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact about Lee’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy to monopolize.

The earlier order identified evidence that, viewed together, could show Lee assisted Celestron’s Executive Committee in price fixing, market allocation, and conspiring to monopolize. The evidence included Lee’s long service in executive positions at Celestron; his receipt of information that Synta was Sunny’s sales arm; his efforts to obtain competitors’ prices and purchasing information; his request that David Shen delay supply and raise prices charged to competitors; and his later receipt and communication of Ningbo Sunny’s pricing information.

Lee’s Argument

Lee relied on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which permits reconsideration when the court failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented earlier. He argued that the summary-judgment order did not expressly evaluate his legal arguments concerning each exhibit. He also argued that such an analysis would clarify the conduct he might need to defend at trial and provide guidance to the business community and its lawyers.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that these were not proper grounds for reconsideration. It explained that an exhibit-by-exhibit analysis was not required and would conflict with the antitrust principle that conspiracy evidence must be considered as a whole rather than separated into individual pieces.

The court also stated that it had in fact addressed Lee’s arguments. It had recognized that being copied on emails, by itself, was insufficient to prove participation in a conspiracy, and it had considered Lee’s contention that some evidence was misrepresented. Even so, viewing the relevant evidence in its totality and in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the evidence tended to exclude the possibility that Lee acted independently.

The court further noted that the earlier summary-judgment order had applied the antitrust standards Lee relied on, including the requirement that the plaintiffs present direct or circumstantial evidence that each defendant knowingly joined and participated in the alleged conspiracy. The court said Lee did not argue that it had misapplied those standards to the facts.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila denied Lee’s motion for leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration. The order did not alter the earlier denial of summary judgment as to Lee.