Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-401/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 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

The Court has discovered that several motions for summary judgment require 

supplemental briefing. For some, the need may not be obvious. See ECF No. 4219 (soliciting 

comment on the need for supplemental briefing regarding the Foreign Trade Antitrust 

Improvement Act). For others, the need may be plainer, such as where a party claimed that its 

motion or response was incomplete due to discovery which, for whatever reason, was scheduled to 

be completed after a filing deadline. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 3257, 3253. In such instances, counsel 

should be able readily to determine whether further evidence has become available, whether a 

given motion or opposition is still well founded,

1

and whether supplemental briefing would assist 

the Court.

The Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs") and the defendants in the DAP cases who have 

moved for summary judgment are ordered to meet and confer regarding whether any party should 

 

1

For example, in their opposition to the Mitsubishi U.S. Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, the Direct Action Plaintiffs requested that they be permitted to finish discovery but 

acknowledged that, at the time of the making of that request, they were “not presently aware [of] 

evidence which may be set forth in opposition to the Mitsubishi U.S. Defendants’ Motion 

regarding their participation in the conspiracy[.]” ECF No. 3257 at 3. Presumably, if further 

discovery has not revealed such evidence, the Direct Action Plaintiffs will dismiss their claims 

against these defendants. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4230 Filed 12/09/15 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

file a supplemental brief in support of, or in opposition to any pending motion for summary 

judgment; a schedule for the filing of such briefs and the responses to them; and the page limits 

that should apply. The Court will discuss this issue at the December 15, 2015 Case Management 

Conference and, based on that discussion, if it determines that further briefing is appropriate, will 

order the parties to submit a (hopefully stipulated) proposed schedule shortly thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4230 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2