Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-406/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 DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS 

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER REGARDING DEADLINE FOR

REQUESTS TO FILE CERTAIN NEW 

MOTIONS

At Tuesday's Case Management Conference, the Court set out a tentative schedule for trial 

of the remaining cases. The Court will finalize trial dates during a trial setting conference, 

approximately two weeks following the hearing on final approval for the Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiff ("IPP") class settlement. See ECF No. 4164 at 2. 

The deadlines for summary judgment motions, motions in limine, and Daubert motions 

have all passed. See ECF No. 2459 at 3-4. The Court does not anticipate that there will be a 

significant need for additional motions beyond those already filed. Nonetheless, the Court 

recognizes that in rare instances, discovery conducted after the prior motions deadline, rulings on 

existing motions, or other case events may provide good cause for the filing of an additional 

motion. The Court now sets a deadline of April 12, 2016 for the filing of requests for leave to file 

an additional such motion. 

Any request for leave to file an additional motion must be filed in accordance with the civil 

local rules on administrative motions, should avoid arguing the merits of the underlying motion to 

any significant degree, and must show good cause why new discovery or an intervening order of 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4261 Filed 12/17/15 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

the Court made it impossible for the motion to be filed within the original deadlines set for such 

motions. Absent such a showing, the Court is likely to deny any request to file a new motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4261 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 2