Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-428/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 REGARDING MARCH 15, 2016 

FAIRNESS HEARING

This matter is currently set for a final fairness hearing on March 15, 2016 with regard to 

the proposed settlement between certain defendants and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”). 

The Court has read and carefully considered the many objections and responses that have been 

filed with regard to that settlement, and will rule on most of them without further hearing. So the 

parties and objectors can provide the information that will be most useful to the Court on March 

15, the Court will conduct the hearing as follows: 

1. The Court will first hear argument about whether the settlement is fair and adequate 

to the extent it requires class members in certain States to release all claims for no consideration. 

Lead Counsel for the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) may argue first, for no more than 20 

minutes. Lead Counsel may reserve some portion of that time for reply. Both of Counsel for 

Objectors Rockhurst University, Gary Talewsky, and Harry Garavanian, on the one hand, and 

attorneys Josef D. Cooper and Francis O. Scarpulla, on the other, may respond for a total of 20 

minutes. Objectors1may divide this time as they see fit, provided they tell the Court before 

argument starts how the time will be divided. If they are unable to agree on a division of time, 

 

1 By using the shorthand “Objectors” in this order, the Court is not resolving, or even addressing, 

the disputed question of whether Attorneys Cooper and Scarpulla have standing. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4477 Filed 03/10/16 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

each of the two groups will have ten minutes. Lead Counsel may not raise new arguments in their 

reply argument. There will be no sur-reply argument. 

2. The Court will next hear argument regarding whether a cy pres could ever become 

necessary with respect to the settlement proceeds. The Court needs a better understanding of the 

settlement distribution process in support of Lead Counsel’s argument that all the funds will be 

distributed to claimants such that no cy pres remedy will ever become necessary. Lead Counsel 

may argue first for not more than ten minutes. Lead Counsel may reserve some portion of that 

time for reply. Counsel for Objector Clifton may respond for not more than ten minutes. Lead 

Counsel may not raise new arguments in their reply argument. There will be no sur-reply 

argument. 

3. The Court will last hear argument regarding the treatment of the attorneys’ fees 

incurred by contract attorneys. Counsel for Objector Douglas St. John may argue first for not more ten 

minutes. Objector St. John may reserve some portion of that time for reply. Lead Counsel may 

respond for not more than ten minutes. Objector St. John may not raise new arguments in his 

reply argument. There will be no sur-reply argument. 

4. Direct Action Plaintiffs and Defendants are ordered to discuss a reasonable date by 

which they could compile a list of the pending motions in limine and Daubert motions, rank 

ordered by importance to the action. The Court will discuss the actual deadline for such a list at 

the hearing.

5. The Court anticipates issuing a number of summary judgment orders after it 

concludes its consideration of this pending settlement. These orders may rely upon sealed 

information. To ensure that all sealed information is protected, the Court plans to issue the 

entirety of each summary judgment order provisionally under seal, understanding that the Court 

will unseal each order in its entirety unless one of the parties files a motion to keep all or part of 

the motion under seal, and demonstrates good cause. No party is required to file such a motion, 

although any motion that is filed must comply with the local rules and the undersigned’s standing 

order for sealing motions. If no party files such a motion within ten days of publication of an 

order, or to the extent that a party does file a motion but fails to demonstrate good cause, the Court 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4477 Filed 03/10/16 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

will unseal the document. If the parties have concerns regarding this approach, they may raise 

them during the March 15 hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4477 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3