Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-166/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 ADOPTING AS MODIFIED 

ISM'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON DIRECT 

ACTION PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINTS

This Order Relates To:

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is the Direct Action Plaintiffs' ("DAPs") 

motion to adopt the Interim Special Master's ("ISM") Report and 

Recommendation on the DAPs' Motion for Leave to File Amended 

Complaints, which concerned whether the DAPs could add two new 

defendants to their complaints and include certain other factual 

allegations. ECF Nos. 1751 ("R&R"), 1772 ("Mot."). Putative 

defendants Thomson1 and Mitsubishi2 oppose the motion to adopt. 

 

1 Technicolor USA ((f.k.a. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.) and 

Technicolor S.A. (f.k.a. Thomson S.A.) (collectively "Thomson").

2 Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. and Mitsubishi Digital Electronics 

Americas, Inc. (collectively "Mitsubishi").

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 1 of 7
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

ECF Nos. 1773 ("Thomson Obj'ns"), 1774 ("Mitsubishi Obj'ns"). The 

matter is fully briefed, ECF No. 1782 ("Reply"), and appropriate 

for decision without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). As explained 

below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the DAPs' motion 

and ADOPTS the R&R as modified. 

II. BACKGROUND

The parties know the facts of this case. A brief procedural 

summary follows. The DAPs filed their complaints in November 2011. 

They did not name Thomson or Mitsubishi as defendants in those 

pleadings. The DAPs claim that sometime after the Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") filed their own motion for leave to 

file amended complaints in August 2012, the DAPs examined their 

files and learned of facts that, in their estimation, merited

adding Thomson and Mitsubishi as defendants in the DAP complaints. 

See ECF No. 1609 ("Mot. for Leave") at 2-6; ECF No. 1610 ("Weiss 

Decl.") ¶¶ 2-4. They also learned of facts meriting the addition 

of non-party Videocon Industries, Ltd. ("Videocon") as a non-party 

co-conspirator, and the addition of non-parties Samsung3 and 

Panasonic4 as defendants only in DAP Costco Wholesale Corp.'s 

complaint. Mot. for Leave at 6-7. On March 27, 2013, the DAPs 

filed the underlying motion for leave to file amended complaints. 

On June 28, 2013, the ISM recommended that the Court grant the 

 

3 Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI 

Mexico S.A. de C.V.; Samsung SDI Brazil Ltda.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI 

Co., Ltd; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) 

Sdn. Bhd. (collectively "Samsung"). 

4 Panasonic Corp.; Panasonic Corp. of North America; MT Picture 

Display, Co., Ltd.; Matsushita Electronic Corp.; (Malaysia) Sdn. 

Bhd.; and Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. (collectively 

"Panasonic").

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 2 of 7
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

motion and give the DAPs leave to amend their complaints on the 

following points:

To add Thomson and Mitsubishi as defendants;

To add Videocon as a non-party co-conspirator;

To add Samsung and Panasonic as defendants in the Costco 

complaint; and

To add additional allegations relevant to American Pipe, 

cross-jurisdictional, and government action tolling.

R&R at 8-9.

Thomson and Mitsubishi now oppose the recommendation that the 

DAPs be given leave to add them as defendants. Neither they nor 

any other party opposed any of the ISM's other recommendations.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Standard of Review for the R&R

The Court reviews the Special Master's factual findings for 

clear error, his legal conclusions de novo, and his procedural 

decisions for abuse of discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(4); 

ECF No. 302 ("Order Appointing Special Master") ¶ 18.

B. Leave to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that a court has 

discretion to allow a party to amend its pleading at any time, and 

that permission to amend should be "freely given when justice so 

requires." Permission is to be granted with "extreme liberality,"

and may be denied only upon grounds of undue delay, prejudice, bad 

faith, or futility. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 

F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 

178, 182 (1962), for factors relevant to denial of permission to 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 3 of 7
4

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

amend); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 

1987) (liberal standard applies even when amendment would "add new 

causes of actions or parties").

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Adding Thomson and Mitsubishi as Parties

Thomson contends that the Special Master erred in recommending 

that the Court grant the DAPs leave to add Thomson as a defendant. 

Thomson argues that at this late date in the litigation, it would 

suffer undue prejudice because the scheduling order that was 

current during this round of briefing would give Thomson far less 

time than any other defendant to prepare for trial. Thomson Obj'ns 

at 4-5. The DAPs reply that the ISM correctly concluded that, in 

its papers and at the hearing on this motion, Thomson failed to 

establish undue prejudice, because (1) Thomson has known about this 

MDL's actions since at least 2008, and has participated in the case 

since August 2012, after the IPPs sought to add it as a defendant; 

and (2) Thomson has been a defendant in a DAP opt-out complaint 

since March 2013 and therefore faces the same scheduling issues as 

it would face here. See Reply at 4-10; R&R at 6-7.

Mitsubishi's argument that the ISM erred is essentially the 

same as Thomson's. The difference is that Mitsubishi has never 

been a party to any case in this MDL, nor has it been the target of 

any government investigation. Mitsubishi contends that putting it 

on the same tight schedule as the other parties, without the 

benefit of its having been in some way acquainted with or a 

participant in the litigation, as Thomson has, would subject it to 

undue prejudice. Mitsubishi Obj'ns at 4-7. The DAPs respond that 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 4 of 7
5

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

Mitsubishi made similar arguments about prejudice when the IPPs 

moved to add Mitsubishi as defendants, and this case's former 

Special Master rejected those contentions. See Reply at 4 

(referring to ECF No. 1453 ("IPP Mot. R&R")). 

As the DAPs note, the ISM relied on the IPP Motion's R&R --

and Mitsubishi's 2011 tolling agreement with the IPPs -- in 

concluding that Mitsubishi will have preserved relevant documents 

and is not now in a materially different position, relative to this 

litigation, than it was when the IPP Motion's R&R issued in 

November 2012. On this point, the DAPs state that discovery is 

still in its early stages, with months left to go. Reply at 7. 

The DAPs add that expecting Mitsubishi to adhere to basic 

litigation requirements, if it were added to the case, would not be 

unjust, and that Mitsubishi would benefit from the other 

defendants' hard work on this case so far. Id. at 5-6.

The Court finds that the ISM erred in granting the DAPs' 

request to add Thomson and Mitsubishi as Defendants. Mitsubishi 

has never been connected with this case in any substantial way, and 

the Court never adopted the IPP Motion's R&R. Discovery in this 

case has proceeded apace, and forcing Mitsubishi to enter

litigation now would put it at an unfair, prejudicial disadvantage. 

The Court finds that the ISM's recommendation to grant leave to add 

Mitsubishi as a defendant was not reasonably justifiable under the 

circumstances. See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 

2000). The Court finds the same as to Thomson: the DAPs had ample 

time to add Thomson to their complaints without delay or prejudice, 

but they did not. The DAPs and the ISM overstated the extent of 

Thomson's involvement in this matter. It has not been much greater 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 5 of 7
6

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

than Mitsubishi's, and to reward delay with amendment in this case 

is not justifiable. Harman, 211 F.3d at 1175. The Court 

recognizes that the deadlines the parties discussed in this round 

of briefing may change, subject to the revised scheduling orders 

the parties were told to file after the September 13 status 

conference, but the Court does not anticipate protracting this 

litigation for too long. Thomson and Mitsubishi's contentions 

about the harshness of imposing this case's schedule on them 

therefore stand.

The Court respectfully declines to adopt the ISM's 

recommendation on this point and DENIES the DAPs' motion as to 

Mitsubishi and Thomson.

B. Other Amendments

No party objected to the ISM's other recommendations. The 

Court finds them well-reasoned and proper and ADOPTS them without 

modification. 

As for the DAPs' request to add allegations concerning 

American Pipe, cross-jurisdictional, or government action tolling: 

the Court declined to address those issues in its August 21, 2013 

Order on the above-captioned Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the 

DAPs' Complaints, ECF No. 1856 ("Aug. 21 Order"), but the Court 

does not find that the August 21 Order mooted those tolling 

questions. Since they are potentially relevant later, the Court 

ADOPTS the ISM's recommendation that the DAPs be given leave to 

amend on those points.

C. Scheduling

The parties are surely aware that the August 21 Order gave the 

DAPs leave to amend their complaints on certain other grounds not 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 6 of 7
7

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

addressed in this Order. The DAPs should keep the August 21 

Order's grants in mind as they file their amended complaints.

V. CONCLUSION

As explained above, the Court ADOPTS as modified the ISM's 

Report and Recommendation on the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion 

for leave to file amended complaints. The DAPs may file amended 

complaints pursuant to the ISM's recommendations, subject to the 

modifications the Court made above. The Court respectfully 

declines to adopt the ISM's recommendation as to the addition of 

Thomson and Mitsubishi as new defendants. As explained above, the

DAPs' motion to file amended complaints adding those Defendants is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September ___, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1959 Filed 09/26/13 Page 7 of 7