Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-505/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE NO. 07-CV-5944 (JST) 

ADMISSIBILITY AND AUTHENTICATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, ETC. 1 

Richard Alan Arnold, Esquire 

William J. Blechman, Esquire 

Kevin J. Murray, Esquire 

Samuel J. Randall, Esquire 

KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. 

1441 Brickell Avenue 

Suite 1100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: (305) 373-1000 

Fax: (305) 372-1861 

E-mail: rarnold@knpa.com

 wblechman@knpa.com

 kmurray@knpa.com

 srandall@knpa.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. 

and Kmart Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

Case No. 07-cv-5944 (JST) 

MDL No. 1917 

This Document Relates to: 

Sears, Roebuck & Co., and Kmart Corporation 

v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv5514 (JST) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY 

AND AUTHENTICATION OF TRIAL 

EXHIBITS AND PROCEDURE FOR 

PLAYING TRANSLATED DEPOSITION 

TESTIMONY 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) are the 

only remaining plaintiffs in Case No. 11-cv-05514 (“Sears/Kmart case”); 

WHEREAS, LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) is the only remaining defendant in the 

Sears/Kmart case; 

WHEREAS, the trial in the Sears/Kmart case is set for January 9, 2017, see ECF No. 4658; 

WHEREAS, both parties have been meeting and conferring regarding ways that the January 

trial may be streamlined; 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5001 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE NO. 07-CV-5944 (JST) 

ADMISSIBILITY AND AUTHENTICATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, ETC. 2 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-12, PLAINTIFFS AND LGE, BY AND THROUGH 

THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. For translated deposition testimony that is played for the jury, the parties agree to 

play the attorney’s question, the witness’ foreign-language answer, and the translation of that 

answer into English. The parties agree that, in order to help streamline the trial process, the 

translation of the attorney’s question into the witness’ native language need not be played. 

2. The parties agree that the jury should be instructed by the Court that the attorney’s 

question was translated into the witness’ native language by the translator, but that the parties have 

agreed that this translation need not be played. The parties further recognize that certain, limited 

circumstances may require deviation from this agreement – such as where the colloquy between a 

main interpreter and check interpreter may affect a witness’s answer. The parties will jointly submit 

proposed language for an instruction to the jury in this regard. 

3. The parties agree that the proponent of a document need not play deposition 

testimony for the purpose of establishing foundational authenticity under Rule 901(a) and business 

records status under Rule 803(6). To the extent that there is agreement between the parties that the 

requisite foundation for a document has been established under Rules 803(6) and 901(a), the parties 

agree to so stipulate by December 2, 2016. For all documents on which the parties cannot reach an 

agreement regarding foundation as a business record or authenticity, the parties agree that the 

proponent of the document shall submit the deposition testimony that it contends establishes the 

foundational authenticity and business records status to the Court by December 6, 2016, in order to 

allow for a ruling on the document’s admissibility either at the pretrial conference or in advance of 

trial. For all exhibits that the Court determines to be admissible, the proponent of the exhibit need 

not play deposition testimony at trial for the purpose of establishing that the document satisfies the 

requirements of Rules 803(6) and/or 901(a). 

5. The parties further agree that, in the event the Court is unable to rule on whether the 

requisite foundation for a document has been established under Rules 803(6) and/or 901(a) for an 

exhibit prior to the time when the proponent of the exhibit seeks to admit it, any deposition 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5001 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE NO. 07-CV-5944 (JST) 

ADMISSIBILITY AND AUTHENTICATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, ETC. 3 

testimony that is played by the proponent of the exhibit for the purpose of establishing the 

authenticity and admissibility of the document will not count towards either party’s allocated trial 

time. 

6. Contingent upon the Court’s approval of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs’ Administrative 

Motion to Establish a Procedure, ECF Nos. 4989-3 & 4991, shall be deemed withdrawn. 

7. This stipulation shall not be introduced into evidence during the jury trial or read to 

the jury during trial, and it shall not be relied on to support an entitlement to any relief not expressly 

contemplated by the terms of this stipulation. 

Dated: November 4, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. 

By: 

Richard Alan Arnold, Esquire 

William J. Blechman, Esquire 

Kevin J. Murray, Esquire 

Samuel J. Randall, Esquire 

1441 Brickell Avenue 

Suite 1100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: (305) 373-1000 

Fax: (305) 372-1861 

E-mail: rarnold@knpa.com 

 wblechman@knpa.com 

 kmurray@knpa.com 

 srandall@knpa.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. 

and Kmart Corporation 

– and – 

 

W

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5001 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE NO. 07-CV-5944 (JST) 

ADMISSIBILITY AND AUTHENTICATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, ETC. 4 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

By: /s/ Brad Brian 

Brad Brian (State Bar No. 079001) 

Gregory J. Weingart (State Bar No. 157997)

E. Martin Estrada (State Bar No. 223802) 

355 South Grand Avenue 

35th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 

Tel: (213) 683-9100 

Fax: (213) 687-3702 

E-mail: brad.brian@mto.com 

 gregory.weingart@mto.com 

 martin.estrada@mto.com 

Counsel for Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that the concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from each of the above signatories. 

It is so stipulated and agreed to by the parties. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 Hon. Jon S. Tigar 

 United States District Judge 

 

November 7, 2016

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5001 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 4