Skip to main content
Case Document


Document Type
This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

NIALL E. LYNCH (State Bar No. 157959)
RICHARD B. COHEN (State Bar No. 79601)
DINA WONG (State Bar No. 202878)
EUGENE S. LITVINOFF (State Bar No. 214318)
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS (State Bar No. 177944)
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36046, Room 10-0101
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-6660

Attorneys for the United States







No. CR 03 0368 PJH
FILED: December 17, 2003

Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1503 (Obstruction
of Justice)

San Francisco Venue

The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges:



1. ALFRED P. CENSULLO is made a defendant on the charge stated below.

2. During the period in or about June 1999 until the present, defendant ALFRED P. CENSULLO was the Regional Sales Manager (RSM) for upstate New York for Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron), a company located and headquartered in Boise, Idaho. During the period that the defendant was an RSM for Micron, he was responsible for sales of dynamic random access memory devices and modules (DRAM) to the customers in his geographic region, including the server division of International Business Machines, Inc. During the period set forth in this Information, Micron and its subsidiaries were engaged in the manufacture and sale of certain DRAM products sold to customers in the United States and elsewhere. DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product. DRAM provides high-speed storage and retrieval of electronic information in personal computers, servers and other devices.

3. From in or about June 2002 to the present, a federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of California has been investigating, among other things, possible federal antitrust offenses in the DRAM industry.

4. In or about June 2002, the federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of California investigating possible violations of the federal antitrust laws in the DRAM industry issued a subpoena duces tecum to Micron.

5. Between in or about June 2002 and in or about November 2002, the defendant


knowingly corruptly influenced, obstructed and impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede, the due administration of justice, in that:

(a)  On or about June 17, 2002, a grand jury sitting in the Northern District of California caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on Micron relating to an investigation into criminal antitrust violations in the DRAM industry, and, among other things, the grand jury subpoena called for the production of documents relating to any contacts and communications between DRAM competitors relating to the pricing and sale of DRAM.
(b)  In the course of his employment at Micron, the defendant was invited and encouraged to attend weekly RSM telephone conferences with other Micron RSMs responsible for major computer original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers, also known as core accounts. During these phone calls, the Micron RSMs stated their price recommendations for DRAM sales to the major OEMs and also discussed the prices at which competing DRAM suppliers would sell their products to major OEMs in upcoming price negotiations. During the period covered by the grand jury subpoena, the defendant from time to time recorded in his notebooks handwritten information concerning competing DRAM suppliers' pricing which he obtained during these RSM telephone conferences. Additionally, during the period covered by the grand jury subpoena, from time to time the defendant received competing DRAM suppliers' pricing from other sources. The defendant also recorded this information by hand in his notebooks.
(c)  Sometime shortly after the grand jury subpoena was served on Micron, Micron notified many of its employees, including the defendant, of the grand jury investigation into criminal antitrust violations in the DRAM industry. After being notified of the grand jury investigation and subpoena, the defendant, with an intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the grand jury investigation, altered his handwritten notations in his notebooks by inserting additional words, phrases, and symbols into his notebooks in an effort to materially change the meaning of the original notes. Many of the entries that were altered by the defendant relate to competitor pricing information, which was responsive to the subpoena. Additionally, the defendant removed and initially withheld 14 pages from his notebooks that contained competitor pricing information and obvious alterations that could be detected by the naked eye, and which, if produced, would have alerted the United States that these documents had been altered.
(d)  The alterations to the defendant's handwritten notations were material to the grand jury investigation. The alterations by the defendant were an attempt to disguise the nature, source, and accuracy of information responsive to the grand jury subpoena concerning contacts and communications between DRAM suppliers relating to the pricing and sale of DRAM, evidence central to any criminal antitrust investigation.



R. Hewitt Pate
Assistant Attorney General

James M. Griffin
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Scott D. Hammond
Director of Criminal Enforcement
United States Department of Justice

Kevin V. Ryan
United States Attorney
Northern District of California

Phillip H. Warren
Chief, San Francisco Office

Niall E. Lynch
Richard B. Cohen
Dina Wong
Eugene S. Litvinoff
Nathanael M. Cousins
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Golden Gate Ave.
Box 36046, Room 10-0101
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 436-6660

Updated April 18, 2023