Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-395/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 Document Relates To: 

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST 

ORDER ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE

Now before the Court is the document denominated "Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Amending Special Master's Scheduling Order No. 1," ECF No. 4172, which the Court treats as an 

administrative motion to enlarge time. See ECF No. 4181. The Court has carefully considered 

that motion, as well as the various objections to it. ECF Nos. 4174, 4175, 4177, 4178, 4179, 4180, 

4183, 4184. 

Good cause appearing, the Court now amends the Special Master’s Scheduling Order No. 

1 as follows:

1. Briefs in opposition to the objections – November 20, 2015;

2. Reply briefs by objectors – December 9, 2015;

3. Deadline for the Special Master to file Report & Recommendation – January 15, 

2016;

4. Deadline for objections to Report & Recommendation – February 5, 2016;

5. Deadline for oppositions to objections – February 19, 2016; and

6. Hearing on final approval of settlement, aggregate attorneys’ fees/costs and 

incentive awards – March 15, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

The Court has also considered the request that the questions of whether to approve the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4185 Filed 11/12/15 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

class action settlements in the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff cases and whether to approve the 

proposed attorneys’ fee awards be heard at different times. The Special Master has determined 

that the issues should be heard together, and the Court sees no reason at this juncture to disturb 

that determination. Should the Court decide that it needs more information regarding attorneys’

fees before ruling on that issue, ECF No. 4179 at 4-5, it will ask. 

Finally, a brief note about advocacy in this recently reassigned case. Certain objections 

argue the merits of the underlying motions. See, e.g., id. at 2 (“The Excluded Plaintiffs have 

reasonably established that Lead Counsel Alioto’s Proposed Settlement must be rejected because 

it is unfair and arbitrary.”); ECF No. 4184 at 7 (“The factors to be balanced by the Court in 

deciding whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate generally fall into the following 

categories . . .”). The Court discourages counsel from using briefing about one issue to argue the 

merits of another. There is reading enough as it is. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4185 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2