Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-504/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 MOTION TO 

INTERVENE

ECF No. 4941

Before the Court is the State of Illinois’s Motion to Intervene for Limited Purposes. For 

the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Motion.1

I. BACKGROUND

The State of Illinois has sued many of the Defendants in this case in Illinois state court for 

violations of the Illinois Antirust Act, asserting a parens patrie claim related to indirect CRT 

purchases by Illinois residents. ECF No. 4941-4. The State’s complaint is based on the same 

conduct alleged in this matter. Id. The LG Defendants in the Illinois state case have “asserted the 

defense of release,” ECF No. 4941 at 3, claiming that their settlement with the direct purchaser 

class in this case “released or otherwise resolved all their indirect purchaser claims.” ECF No. 

4941-5; 4941-6. The State now seeks to intervene in this case to obtain a ruling from this Court 

that the direct purchaser settlement did not release indirect purchasers’ state antitrust claims, over 

which Illinois claims to have exclusive representation rights. ECF No. 4941 at 3. Illinois also 

seeks to intervene to challenge the sealing of various motions filed in this case, “not only to access 

 

1

The Court has considered the parties' pleadings and finds the matter to be suitable for disposition

without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The hearing currently scheduled for November 

17, 2016 is vacated. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4994 Filed 11/04/16 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

the documents itself [sic], but to vindicate the public’s right of access.” Id. at 4. No party has 

opposed Illinois’s motion. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides for intervention as a matter of right 

where the potential intervenor “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the 

subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter 

impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately 

represent that interest.” The Ninth Circuit summarized the requirements for intervention as of 

right under Rule 24(a)(2) as follows:

(1) [T]he [applicant’s] motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a ‘significantly 

protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the 

action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a 

practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's 

interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action.

Freedom from Religion Found. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting California 

ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2006)). Proposed intervenors must 

satisfy all four criteria; “[f]ailure to satisfy any one of the requirements is fatal to the application.” 

Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2009). In evaluating 

motions to intervene, “courts are guided primarily by practical and equitable considerations, and 

the requirements for intervention are broadly interpreted in favor of intervention.” United States 

v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). “Courts are to take all well-pleaded, 

nonconclusory allegations in the motion to intervene, the proposed complaint or answer in 

intervention, and declarations supporting the motion as true absent sham, frivolity or other 

objections.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1) governs permissive intervention. Although 

normally, Rule 24(b) applies when “an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a 

question of law or fact in common,” Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance Co., 966 

F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit has held that permissive intervention also applies 

to “[n]onparties seeking access to a judicial record in a civil case.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999); see also EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4994 Filed 11/04/16 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

146 F.3d 1042, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (collecting cases). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court grants the State’s motion to intervene as of right to seek clarification regarding 

the direct purchaser settlement in this case. All four requirements for intervention as of right are 

satisfied. First, the State’s motion is timely, filed several months after the LG Defendants asserted 

the affirmative defense of release. See ECF No. 4941-5; 4941-6. The second and third criteria are 

also met: Illinois has an interest in this matter that could be impaired absent intervention because, 

under LG’s theory, the direct purchaser settlement eliminates the State’s right to represent indirect 

purchaser claims in state court. Finally, the direct purchaser class and the LG Defendants are 

inadequate representatives of the interests the State of Illinois seeks to protect. 

The Court also grants the State’s motion to intervene to challenge the sealing of various 

documents in this case. As outlined above, it is well-established that Rule 24(b) provides an 

avenue for “[n]onparties seeking access to a judicial record in a civil case.” San Jose Mercury 

News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1100. 

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Illinois’s motion to intervene for the limited purposes described above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4994 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 3