• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 1329-1343 of 9,777 results

No. 4584

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4584 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 20, 2016)
At the Court’s suggestion, all parties agreed that it would resolve the issue satisfactorily if the Court viewed the materials supporting the claimed notice expenses in camera.
On April 20, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in Yamada v. Nobel Biocare, No. 14- 55263, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04849-MWF-PLA.
See id at 15 (“So the question is whether judicial efficiency may eclipse Defendants’ fundamental right to inspect and challenge the documents.
Although the current request relates only to notice expenses, not timesheets ‒ and although the parties stipulated to the Court’s suggested procedure ‒ the Court nonetheless believes that the better practice is to provide the materials to opposing counsel.
Had the Court been aware of the Yamada decision before yesterday’s hearing, it would have ordered that the notice expense Northern District of California United States District Court materials be filed on the docket rather than lodged for in camera review.
cite Cite Document

No. 4482

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4482 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 14, 2016)
We emphasize, however, that in making a decision on whether to consider newly offered evidence, the district court must actually exercise its discretion, rather than summarily accepting or denying the motion.
The purpose of appointing a Special Master is not only to receive the benefit of his or her expertise, but also to reduce the evidence and issues that must be considered by the district court.
“It would defeat this purpose if the district court was required to hear matters anew on issues never presented to the magistrate.” Borden v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987) (observing also that “[p]arties must take before the magistrate, not only their ‘best shot’ but all of their shots” (citation omitted)).
That this evidence was repeatedly struck by the Special Master militates even further away from the Court considering it, because it would unfairly disadvantage the many litigants in this case who have complied with the rules.
The Court also notes that several arguments in the briefs seemed directed less at the instant motion and more at influencing the Court’s evaluation of Special Master Quinn’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4351.
cite Cite Document

No. 4611

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4611 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 29, 2016)
undersigned release under appropriate seal a report of the aggregate settlement amount to date in the DAP actions.
The October 7, 2015 Order directed the settling DAPs ”to provide a copy of all settlement agreements to Special Master Walker for in camera review, each with a joint cover letter by relevant settling parties highlighting those portions relating to compensation and cooperation” and the Special Master to ”aggregate compensation values and release, under an appropriately tailored seal, said aggregate value to all attorneys” in the DAP actions.
The order also provided an updating procedure that protected against deducing the amount of single settlement figures by requiring the Special Master to ”delay such updates to ensure that the update includes new values from enough additional settlements (not fewer than two (2), absent compelling reason) that attorneys in other DAP cases cannot through simple math determine the amount paid in any one specific settling DAP case by comparing the change in value from one update to the next.” Id at In the meantime, some but not all DAPs provided their settlement agreements t the undersigned and a number of new stipulated dismissals of DAP actions have been recorded in the docket without submission of the corresponding settlement agreements to the undersigned.
Submitting all such agreements at this time allows their inclusion in the aggregate settlement values to date, as required by the October 7, 2015 Order.
Having not received any objection to Defendants’ request and perceiving no reason not to continue implementing the October 7, 2015 Order, the undersigned shall undertake to analyze the DAP settlement submissions and issue a report.
cite Cite Document

No. 4651

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4651 (N.D.Cal. May. 12, 2016)
In it, they mistakenly identified the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs as the Designating Party under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).
These latter parties were not provided copies of the materials proposed to be sealed or placed on notice that they needed to file declarations.
It is their interests that might be harmed if the Court denies the Sealing Motion for lack of support.
To avoid this unfairness, the Mitsubishi Defendants now request that the proper Designating Parties be given an opportunity to file declarations.
The Mitsubishi Defendants are ordered to provide all materials otherwise required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) to the correct Designating Parties no later than May 13, 2016, and file a proof of service on the Court’s docket.
cite Cite Document

No. 4658

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4658 (N.D.Cal. May. 24, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 4722

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4722 (N.D.Cal. Jul. 18, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 5106

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 5106 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2017)

cite Cite Document

No. 4542

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4542 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 5, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 4522

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4522 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 25, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 4516

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4516 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 23, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 4515

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4515 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 22, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 4510

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 4510 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 21, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 5218

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 5218 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 7, 2017)

cite Cite Document

No. 2882

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 2882 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 2, 2014)

cite Cite Document

No. 1878

Document MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944, No. 1878 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2013)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 89 90 91 92 93 ... >>