Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-313/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 REQUESTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 

This Order Relates To: 

INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Hitachi 

Ltd., No. C-13-1173; 

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. 

Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-02776; 

Siegel v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-

cv-05261; 

Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-

cv-05502; 

Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hitachi 

Ltd., No. 11-cv-05513; 

Target Corp. v. Technicolor SA, 

No. 13-cv-05686; 

Target Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture 

Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05514 

ViewSonic Corp. v. Chunghwa 

Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 14-cv02510; 

Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart 

Corp. v. Technicolor SA, No. 3:13-

cv-05262; 

Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart 

Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes 

Ltd., No. 13-cv-05686; 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2953 Filed 11/03/14 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

For the Northern District of California 

Now before the Court are motions related to the structuring 

the trial of these matters. Simplifying somewhat, Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") and Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs") 

whose cases were filed in the Northern District of California 

jointly move for consolidation of the DAP cases for an initial 

trial followed by a separate IPP trial. ECF Nos. 2897 ("IPP/DAP 

Mot."); 2903 ("Best Buy Joinder"). Defendants oppose this 

proposal, instead cross-moving for the consolidation of all cases 

for a single joint trial. ECF No. 2914 ("Defs. Cross-Mot."). 

The Court must weigh several considerations in assessing these 

motions including, among other things, the risk of jury confusion. 

The Court's analysis of that risk would be aided by the submission 

of proposed special verdict forms. Accordingly, IPPs/DAPs and 

Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file proposed special verdict 

forms for use in assessing their proposed trial plans within 

fourteen (14) days. The parties shall not be bound to advance the 

same verdict form in any pretrial filings; instead the proposed 

forms will only be used by the Court in assessing the instant 

motions. If necessary, each side may file a memorandum of no more 

than five (5) pages confined to an explanation of its individual 

proposed special verdict form. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: November 3, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2953 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 2