Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-207/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Tech Data Corp. v. Hitachi, 

Ltd., No. 13-cv-00157

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 07-5944 SC

MDL No. 1917

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

The Defendants' joint motion to dismiss, ECF No. 1992 ("MTD"), 

raises the issue of whether Tech Data's Florida complaint tolls a 

statute of limitations for Tech Data. The Court has not determined 

whether this is so, partly because the parties' opposition and 

reply briefs on the matter do not fully explain their positions. 

See ECF Nos. 2197 ("Tech Data Opp'n"), 2231 ("Reply"). The Court 

recognizes that this dispute may not be dispositive, given the 

parties' contentions regarding whether that particular complaint 

could toll any claim in this case, but the Court cannot make a 

fully reasoned holding on this point without more clarity from the 

parties.

Specifically, Tech Data's opposition brief refers to a Florida 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2307 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

complaint filed in 2007 in support of its tolling argument, but the 

complaint they cite and include in their declaration is stamped 

2011. See Opp'n at 8 (citing ECF No. 2198 ("Wagner Decl.") Ex. 

9).1 Obviously, these dates would provide vastly different tolling 

calculations if the Court were to find them relevant at all. 

Further, Defendants' reply brief suggests in a footnote that "even 

if Tech Data did benefit from tolling based on the State of 

Florida's complaint, it would have tolled the statute of 

limitations for only 367 days, which still renders Tech Data's 

[Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices ("FDUTPA")] claim 

untimely." Reply at 12 n.11. The reply does not directly explain 

how Defendants calculated this number: for example, it is important 

for such a calculation to note the relevant complaint's filing 

date, as well as the date tolling would end based on that complaint 

(e.g., dismissal based on a stipulation, and whether the dismissal 

should be calculated as of the Special Master's or the Court's 

approval). Defendants cite, apparently by analogy, a different 

section of the reply brief that concerns different parties and 

different complaints. 

Based on what the parties have presented on this issue, the 

Court can make no decision on this aspect of the parties' dispute. 

The result may or may not be relevant, but the Court ORDERS 

Defendants and Tech Data to submit supplemental briefing on this 

matter, clarifying the issues above (and any secondary issues that 

may necessarily arise from those clarifications).

 1 Tech Data also cites Florida Statutes section 501.07(1)(c) in 

this part of their brief, but that section was repealed. The Court 

assumes that Tech Data meant to cite Section 501.207(1)(c), but if 

that assumption is wrong, Tech Data should cite the correct 

statute.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2307 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Tech Data is to file a supplemental brief clarifying their 

position and identifying the operative Florida complaint within ten 

(10) days of this Order's signature date. Defendants are to 

respond within seven (7) days of Tech Data's supplemental brief. 

The parties' briefs are limited to five (5) pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2307 Filed 01/08/14 Page 3 of 3