Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-426/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 INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

FILINGS OF ATTORNEY GEORGE 

COCHRAN SHOULD NOT BE 

STRICKEN

The Court is now in the process of considering the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

of Special Master Martin Quinn regarding the class action settlements between certain defendants 

and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, ECF No. 4351, as well as the objections to that R&R and the 

responses to those objections. 

Among the objections is one filed by attorney George Cochran on behalf of objector Josie 

Saik. ECF No. 4384. Mr. Cochran does not appear to be a member of the bar of the Northern 

District of California nor, for that matter, a member of the California State Bar. 

Civil Local Rule 11-1 provides, “Except as provided in Civil L.R. 11-2, 11-3, 11-9 and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), an attorney must be a member of the bar of this Court to practice in this 

Court and in the Bankruptcy Court of this District.” None of the foregoing exceptions applies

here. 

Accordingly, attorney George Cochran and objector Josie Saik are ORDERED TO SHOW 

CAUSE why the objection at ECF No. 4384, as well as Mr. Cochran’s Notice of Appearance, ECF 

No. 4139, should not be STRICKEN from the record of this action. 1 A written response to this 

 

1 Ms. Saik appears to have filed a previous document on her own behalf, even though she may 

have been represented by Mr. Cochran at the time. See ECF No. 4140. It is unclear to the Court 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4458 Filed 03/07/16 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

order must be filed by March 8, 2015. The response must not exceed five pages. If no response is 

filed, the Court will strike the filings in question. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

without further research what effect, if any, Local Rule 11-1 might have on this filing, or whether 

a filing by someone other than counsel of record was even authorized in the first place. See Jaspar 

v. Khoury, No. 2:06-CV-1177 GEB KJN, 2011 WL 5118535, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011). 

Because the filing at docket number 4140 is not before the Court, it is not necessary for the Court 

to resolve these complexities. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4458 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 2