You remember Matsushita from law school, right? It's the case that notably said that the evidence of an antitrust conspiracy need to be "plausible" in order to survive summary judgment, and that a court must determine on such a motion whether or not there's an alternative ("innocent") explanation for the market activity at issue in the lawsuit.
Here's a perfect contemporary example of how Matsushita is applied. Judge McKeown holds that there's no plausible evidence of an antitrust conspiracy because, on the facts of this particular case, the participation of U.S. Steel in this alleged conspiracy would make no sense.
It's a straight-up application of Matsushita. A perfect example for law students and lawyers alike.
