## Facts

- National Union Electric Corp. (NUE) and Zenith Radio Corp. filed separate federal actions against multiple Japanese manufacturers and related U.S. affiliates involved in consumer electronics.
- The complaints alleged a long-running scheme affecting U.S. markets, including claims under statutes addressing domestic competition, international trade, antidumping, conspiracy, and price discrimination.
- Plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief for conduct alleged to have occurred from the mid-1960s through the late 1970s.
- The district court consolidated the cases for pretrial and trial.
- Discovery lasted several years and generated an enormous record, including millions of documents and thousands of pages of deposition testimony.
- NUE and Zenith demanded jury trials.
- Defendants moved to strike the jury demands, arguing that the case was too complex and burdensome for a jury to decide fairly and that the court should try the case without a jury.
- The district court denied the motions to strike the jury demands.
- Defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit from the order denying their request to eliminate the jury.

## Issues

1. May a federal court deny a jury trial on legal claims (including treble-damages antitrust claims) solely because the case is highly complex and difficult for lay jurors to understand?
2. Do the Seventh Amendment or the Due Process Clause allow a “complexity exception” that permits striking a civil jury demand in an unusually complex case?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the motions to strike the jury demands.
- The court declined to recognize a judicially created “complexity exception” to the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial.
- The court held that case difficulty, even on the scale presented, was not a sufficient constitutional basis to remove plaintiffs’ jury right; instead, trial courts should address difficulty through case-management tools.

## Legal Principles

- The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury in suits at common law for legal claims such as claims seeking money damages, and courts may not withdraw that right based only on the perceived difficulty of the case.
- Federal courts generally lack authority to create a free-standing “complexity exception” that would allow judges to replace juries whenever legal and factual questions are hard to present or decide.
- Concerns that jurors may struggle with a large record or technical proof do not, by themselves, justify striking a timely jury demand; the appropriate response is careful trial administration (for example, phased trials, special verdicts, tailored instructions, and evidentiary controls).
- If any broad change to the civil jury system is warranted, it is for the constitutional amendment process or legislative action, not for courts to accomplish by case-by-case invention of an exception.

## Conclusion

In *In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation*, the Third Circuit held that even exceptionally complex antitrust and trade-related claims seeking treble damages must be tried to a jury when the Seventh Amendment applies, and it affirmed the district court’s refusal to strike the plaintiffs’ jury demands, directing that the litigation proceed with a jury rather than a bench trial.


In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F.2d 1069 (1980)