Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-447/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 INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER REGARDING SUPPORT FOR 

CHUNGHWA NOTICE COSTS

Among the topics addressed at the fairness hearing held on April 19, 2016 was the issue of 

notice costs for the Chunghwa settlement. Certain objectors had asked that the Court have those 

claimed expenses audited. 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. The Court ordered the documents lodged with the Court by April 22, 2016. See ECF No. 

4572 at 2 ¶ 2.

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. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that a district 

court that reviews attorney timesheets to resolve a fee dispute in a class action must make the 

timesheets available to opposing counsel when requested. See id at 15 (“So the question is 

whether judicial efficiency may eclipse Defendants’ fundamental right to inspect and challenge the 

documents. It may not.”). The Court was not aware of Yamada during yesterday’s hearing. 

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 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4584 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

materials be filed on the docket rather than lodged for in camera review. 

The Court now orders Lead Counsel to file the documents on the docket. Lead Counsel 

may request the documents be filed under seal if he believes it necessary. The deadline for filing 

remains April 22, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4584 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2