Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-269/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 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917 

Case No. C-07-5944-SC 

ORDER DENYING TOSHIBA 

AMERICA INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION TO 

COMPEL 

This Order Relates To: 

Case No. 12-cv-02648 

P.C. RICHARD & SON LONG ISLAND 

CORPORATION; MARTA COOPERATIVE 

OF AMERICA, INC.; AND ABC 

APPLIANCE, INC. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

 HITACHI, LTD., et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

Now before the Court is Defendant Toshiba America Information 

Systems, Inc.'s ("Toshiba") motion to compel P.C. Richard & Son 

Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., and 

ABC Appliance, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs")1

 to produce 

settlement agreements in response to Request Number 3 of Toshiba 

and Philips Electronics North America Corporation's ("Philips") 

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. ECF No. 2602 

 

1

 Recognizing the prospective impact of the Court's ruling, the 13 

remaining Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs") join in opposing the 

motion. ECF No. 2566, at 1. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2717 Filed 07/29/14 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 

("Mot."). On May 8, 2014, anticipating that the parties would 

likely seek review of any decision by the Special Master, the Court 

withdrew reference on the motion. ECF No. 2566. The motion is 

fully briefed, ECF Nos. 2602, 2627 ("Opp'n"), and 2654 ("Reply"), 

and appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). The motion is DENIED as explained below. 

 In its motion, Toshiba seeks to compel Plaintiffs to produce 

"[a]ll settlement agreements between YOU and any other PERSON 

RELATED TO any of the claims asserted in the COMPLAINT" in response 

to Request Number 3 of their First Set of Requests for Production 

of Documents. Mot. at 3. In response to the request, Plaintiffs 

declined to produce any documents and instead objected to the 

request arguing, among other things, that (1) the materials sought 

are protected by Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and (2) are 

irrelevant, and thus outside the scope of discovery. ECF No. 2602-

1 ("Foster Decl.") Ex. 2, at 6-7. In the briefing, Plaintiffs note 

that they "have not entered into any settlement agreements at this 

time and thus have no settlement agreements to produce." Opp'n at 

1. 

While Toshiba's motion raises a question that the Court will 

likely have to confront in the future, it is canonical that federal 

courts do not issue advisory opinions. See generally Steel Co. v. 

Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998). Furthermore, 

even though the parties have not raised the issue, the Court has a 

duty to examine its own jurisdiction sua sponte. B.C. v. Plumas 

United Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, as 

in other cases seeking to compel settlement agreements that have 

not yet been entered into, the motion to compel is not yet ripe. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2717 Filed 07/29/14 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 

See, e.g., Manildra Milling Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., Civ. A. 

No. 86-2457-S, 1991 WL 30772, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 1991) ("The 

court finds that at this time [the] motion to compel is not ripe 

because there is no agreement which this court can compel the 

parties to produce."); see also Linares v. Costco Wholesale, Inc., 

No. 11-CV-02547-MMA-BGS, 2013 WL 5434570, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 

2013) (denying a motion to compel discovery with a purely 

prospective effect). As a result, the Court lacks jurisdiction 

under Article III to render a decision on the motion at this time. 

See generally Colwell v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 

1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Two components of the Article III case 

or controversy requirement are standing and ripeness."). 

As a result the motion must be DENIED. Should Plaintiffs 

enter into a settlement, Toshiba may refile their motion. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: July 28, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2717 Filed 07/29/14 Page 3 of 3