Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-410/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

All Actions

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER GRANTING TOSHIBA 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

On November 6, 2015, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Special Master Vaughn R. Walker, United States Chief District Judge (Ret.) (“Judge Walker”)

granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Toshiba to authenticate documents. ECF No. 4171

(“11/6/15 Order”). Subsequently, Toshiba Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for 

Reconsideration seeking “reconsideration of the Court’s articulation of the standard of review 

applicable to its review of reports and recommendations of Special Master Vaughn Walker.” ECF 

No. 4186. The Court granted Toshiba’s motion for leave. ECF No. 4205. Now before the Court 

is Toshiba’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 4186-1 (“Mot.”). The motion is fully briefed1

and suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons 

provided below, Toshiba’s motion is GRANTED.

The potential appointment of Special Master Walker arose in November 2013, at which 

time Judge Conti (the undersigned’s predecessor in this matter) noted that correspondence from

the parties indicated the need for a discovery master. ECF No. 2095 (citing ECF Nos. 1954, 1967, 

1968, 2013). Judge Conti then proposed the appointment of Judge Walker as discovery master, 

 

1

ECF Nos. 4223 (“Opp’n”); 4236 (“Reply”).

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4279 Filed 01/05/16 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

Northern District of California

stating that “[t]he parties shall file letters of support or opposition to this decision within seven (7) 

days of this Order’s signature date” and noting that “[a]ny party objecting to this appointment 

shall propose an alternative discovery magistrate.” ECF No. 2095 at 1. In response, the parties 

filed a joint letter, indicating their support of Judge Walker’s appointment. ECF No. 2204. Judge 

Conti then issued an Order Appointing Special Master for Discovery. ECF No. 2272. That order 

stated in part that “[r]eview of the Special Master’s orders will be subject to the same procedures 

as review of orders of a Magistrate Judge.” Id. at 4. 

A district court reviews a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a 

magistrate judge for whether such order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court reviewed Judge Walker’s R&R for 

clear error. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, states that district courts are 

to review all objections to a special master’s findings of fact de novo unless the parties stipulate 

that those findings be reviewed for clear error. The parties did not stipulate to the provisions 

contained in the Order Appointing Special Master for Discovery, nor was there any such 

stipulation in the correspondence originally relied upon by Judge Conti or the joint letter by which 

the parties agreed to the appointment of Judge Walker as Special Master.

Plaintiffs note Toshiba neither objected to the Order Appointing Special Master for 

Discovery nor the multiple orders issued by Judge Conti which stated that the Court was 

reviewing Judge Walker’s findings for clear error. See Opp’n at 2 (providing as examples, ECF 

Nos. 2714 at 4; 2945 at 5). The Court agrees it would have been helpful to all parties if Toshiba 

had made its objections known previously, and that it had more than one opportunity to do so. 

Nevertheless, a lack of objection does not a stipulation make. Parties have a right to de novo

review; Rule 23 is clear that they can relinquish that right by stipulation; the parties here have not 

done so. Accordingly, the Court finds that its 11/6/2015 Order as to the standard of review was in 

error.

Toshiba does not challenge the Court’s adoption of Judge Walker’s R&R. Rather, it asks

only that the Court reconsider its articulation of the standard of review. See Mot. at 1 (“Toshiba 

would not ordinarily be inclined to move for reconsideration of such an order. But Toshiba is 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4279 Filed 01/05/16 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

Northern District of California

concerned about the precedential effect of an order that . . . applies an overly deferential standard 

to the Special Master’s report and recommendations.”). Having found that it previously applied 

the incorrect standard of review, however, the Court believes it appropriate to now apply the 

correct one. After applying a de novo standard of review, the Court once again ADOPTS Judge 

Walker’s R&R in full. As the Court held in its previous order, “Plaintiff’s motion to compel was a 

discovery dispute within Judge Walker’s authority.” 11/6/2015 Order at 3. A higher standard of 

review does not change this fact. 

For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Toshiba’s motion as to the Court’s 

articulation of the standard of review for reports and recommendations by the Special Master.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4279 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 3