Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 3118 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 17, 2014)
This Order Relates To:
The Court hereby ORDERS the Special Master to prepare a report and any recommendations necessary regarding the progress of settlement discussions in the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' action.
The Special Master shall file the report at his convenience.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 3118 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 17, 2014)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4066 (N.D.Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)
ViewSonic contends that it would be exceptionally burdensome for Ms Cheng to travel from Asia to the United States, prepare for yet another deposition and spend an entire week away from her corporate responsibilities.
The undersigned finds that the interests of full and fair discovery weigh in favor of granting defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Bonny Cheng.
Defendants did not, therefore, have sufficient time to prepare to question Ms Cheng, the person most knowledgeable about ViewSonic’s CRT procurement practices during the relevant period, as a percipient witness.
The undersigned finds that the burden of deposing Bonny Cheng as a fact witness would not outweigh the potential benefit of the discovery sought, which may be highly relevant to the merits of ViewSonic’s antitrust claims and damages.
B. Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of ViewSonic’s CEO, James Chu Defendants seek to depose ViewSonic’s founder and CEO, James Chu, on two topics relevant to Defendants’ FTAIA arguments: (1) ViewSonic’s practices of shipping CRT monitors it procured into consumer markets (where, when and how) (“product flow”) and (2) ViewSonic’s overall corporate structure, including its legal entities involved in CRT monitor purchasing, shipping and sales.
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4066 (N.D.Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1444 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2012)
Case3:07-cv-05944-SC Document1380 Filed09/28/12 Page2 of 2Case3:07-cv-05944-SC Document1444 Filed11/13/12 Page2 of 2 Case3:O7—cv—O5944—SC Document138@ Fi|ed(D9/28/12 Page2 of2 Case3:O7—cv—O5944—SC Document1350-1 FlledO9/14/12 Page2 of2 I To the Honorable Samuel Conti, United States District Judge: On September 14, 2012, Intervenor Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (“Thomson 3 Consumer”) filed its Motion to Intervene.
In the Motion to Intervene, Thomson Consumer seeks the 4 Court’s permission to intervene in the above-titled action for the limited purpose of opposing the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 1325), 6 which proposes to add Thomson Consumer as a defendant in this action.
Having carefully considered the briefs and other submissions of the parties, as well as oral arguments by counsel at the hearing, the Special Master recommends that the Motion to Intervene should be GRANTED.
Special Master 15 The Report and Recommendations are Accepted and Ordered 16 ‘DATED: Nov. 13, 2012 Aw Hon.
[PROPOSED] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE Case No. C\/~07-5944-SC
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1444 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2012)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4937 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 6, 2016)
By way of summation, this case is predicated on an alleged conspiracy to price-fix cathode ray tubes (“CRTs”), a core component of tube-style screens for common devices including
Thomson Consumer does not admit that it was involved in a CPT-conspiracy to price-fix monitor components for televisions, but effectively concedes that no motion for summary judgment based on absence of evidence of liability is appropriate for a CPT-conspiracy.
“In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, and is required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997).
Taldu also states that “Koreans are much more open to discussions/partnership” and that meeting participants will “[b]uild a lobbying case towards glass makers (and statistics offices) in order to release their reluctance for additional glass capacity.” In essence, a Thomson Consumer employee Northern District of California United States District Court was made aware of an exchange of information between various competitors (who manufactured both CDTs and CPTs) as to the future growth of the CDT market.
TMM/ATO[5] face an uphill challenge in 2000 and thereafter due to the monopolistic practices of Philips with their heavy concentration of tube/glass capacity coupled with a weakened and “bribed” Samsung making mostly CDT.
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4937 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 6, 2016)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4152 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 28, 2015)
The Court has reviewed several Reports and Recommendations by Special Master Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Judge (Ret.)
No objections have been filed, and the Court finds the reports uniformly correct, well-reasoned, and thorough.
ECF No. 3960 regarding Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to compel Samsung SDI, Hitachi, and Panasonic to authenticate documents (except as modified by the Order of the Court dated September 9, 2015, ECF No. 4042, applicable only to the Direct Action Plaintiffs and the Hitachi Defendants); /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 3.
ECF No. 4066 regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel ViewSonic Percipient Witness Depositions; 4.
ECF No. 4095 regarding an order on remand from the Court of certain DAP's motion to compel a Thomson Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; and 5.
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4152 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 28, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4230 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 9, 2015)
For others, the need may be plainer, such as where a party claimed that its motion or response was incomplete due to discovery which, for whatever reason, was scheduled to be completed after a filing deadline.
In such instances, counsel should be able readily to determine whether further evidence has become available, whether a given motion or opposition is still well founded,1 and whether supplemental briefing would assist the Court.
1 For example, in their opposition to the Mitsubishi U.S. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Direct Action Plaintiffs requested that they be permitted to finish discovery but acknowledged that, at the time of the making of that request, they were “not presently aware [of] evidence which may be set forth in opposition to the Mitsubishi U.S. Defendants’ Motion regarding their participation in the conspiracy[.
Presumably, if further discovery has not revealed such evidence, the Direct Action Plaintiffs will dismiss their claims against these defendants.
Northern District of California United States District Court file a supplemental brief in support of, or in opposition to any pending motion for summary judgment; a schedule for the filing of such briefs and the responses to them; and the page limits that should apply.
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4230 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 9, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4253 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 16, 2015)
The Court currently has pending a large number of summary judgment motions.
Consistent with the grouping of those motions specified in ECF No. 4078-1 and identified by the Court at yesterday’s Case Management Conference, the Court now sets argument on the pending motions on the following dates:
February 9, 2016 ‒ Withdrawal (ECF Nos. 2972, 2995, 3027, 3086); February 23, 2016 ‒ Absence of Liability (ECF Nos. 2976, 2981, 2984, 3001, 3037, 3040, 3048); and
March 7, 2016 ‒ State Law Claims (ECF Nos. 2973, 2978, 2997, 3029, 3031).
All hearings will take place at 9:30 a.m. / / / / / / Northern District of California United States District Court The sequence in which these motions are heard does not necessarily reflect the order in which the Court will decide them.
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4253 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 16, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1595 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)
et a1., Defendants.
This Document Relates to ALL CASES [March 15, 2013 Last day for Mediation - Direct Class] October 23, 2013 Last day for Directs, Indireets, Stare Attorneys General, and Direct Actions Piaintiffs to serve expert reports on merits November 22, 2013 Last day for Defendants to serve expert reports on merits January 31, 2014 Last day for Directs, Indirects, State Attorneys General, and Direct Action Plaintiffs to serve rebuttaf expert reports on merits
Case3:O7—cv—O5944—SC Document1595 Fi|edO3/13/13 Page2 of2 March 3, 2014 April '15, 2014 June 2, 2014 July 2, 2014 Juiy 18, 2014 July 31, 2014 Close of fact and expert discovery Last day to file dispositive motions Last day to tile oppositions to dispositive motions Last day for dispositive motions replies Hearing on dispositive motions Mediation August i5, 2014 Last day for actions filed outside of ND Cat.
to be returned to courts in which originally filed August 15, 2014 Last day for settlement conference August 35, 2014 Last day for filing motions in lirnine and other non- August 22, 2014 August 29, 2014 dispositive pretrial motions Last day to meet and confer re pretrial order Parties must exchange proposed exhibits and witness lists August 29, 2014 Last day for filing pretrial order, agreed set ofiury instructions and verdict forms August 29, 2014 Last day for fiiing oppositions to motions in iimino September 12, 2014 Last day for filing motions in liinine reply briefs September 26, 2014 Hearing on moti.ons in limine October 6, 2014 Final pretrial conference October 20, 2014* Trial(s) * The dates above apply to the action of the California Attorney General only insofar as the close of fact discovery on Defendants, the date of the expert report due from Plaintiffs, and mediation is concerned.
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1595 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4596 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 25, 2016)
This Order Relates To:
The parties having recently confirmed that the four motions at ECF Nos. 2973, 3102, 3108,
and 3526 are moot, see ECF No. 4593, the Court hereby DENIES all four motions as MOOT.
United States District Judge Northern District of California United States District Court
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4596 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 25, 2016)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 2261 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 11, 2013)
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
This Document Relates To: Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. v. Hitachi Ltd., et al., Case No. C 13-1173 (SC)
CIVIL LOCAL RULES 7-11 AND 79-5(b) Case No. 07-cv-5944, MDL No. 1917; Case No. 13-cv-1173 Upon consideration of Sharp’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Related to Sharp’s Motion to Compel Under Seal Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(b), submitted in connection with Sharp’s Motion to Compel, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Administrative Motion is hereby GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and maintain under seal Sharp’s Unredacted Motion to Compel and Exhibits C, D and E and K attached to the Declaration of Craig Benson in Support of Sharp’s Motion to Compel.
CIVIL LOCAL RULES 7-11 AND 79-5(b) Case No. 07-cv-5944, MDL No. 1917; Case No. 13-cv-1173
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 2261 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 11, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 5081 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 22, 2016)
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 5081 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 22, 2016)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4927 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 5, 2016)
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4927 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 5, 2016)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1869 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 27, 2013)
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1869 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 27, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 2613 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 10, 2014)
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 2613 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 10, 2014)
+ More Snippets
Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1883 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2013)
Cite Document
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1883 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2013)
+ More Snippets