Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-425/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 RE: 

OBJECTION TO EX PARTE 

COMMUNICATIONS

Special Master Quinn filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding the pending 

settlement between Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) and various Defendants. See ECF No. 

4351. Objectors Joseph D. Cooper and Fancis O. Scarpulla (collectively, “Objectors”) filed a 

timely objection, ECF No. 4437 (“C-S Obj.”), to which Mario N. Alioto, Lead Counsel for IPPs 

timely responded, ECF No. 4449 (“IPP Resp.”).

Objectors’ final objection to the settlement suggests that Special Master Quinn may have 

relied on ex parte communications of a non-administrative nature in considering the parties’

arguments and preparing his R&R. See C-S Obj. at 14-15. They request 

that prior to the March 15, 2016 Fairness Hearing, the record be 

supplemented with: (1) the Alioto letter [described elsewhere as 

“Alioto Ltr. Dtd. 1/7/16 to Special Master, e-filed at JAMS”] and all 

additional materials, including time records, submitted to and

considered by the Special Master, and all communications, letters, 

emails and text messages between the Special Master and Counsel 

that were [not] posted on Case Anywhere; and (2) all notes and

entries in the Special Master’s time records which memorialize 

communications with Counsel.

ECF No. 4437 at 19-20. Lead Counsel acknowledge that there were ex parte contacts, but deny 

that any of them were improper. ECF No. 4449 at 57. Lead Counsel say nothing in response to 

the request that they and Special Master Quinn supplement the Case Anywhere record. No party

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4456 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

cites any authority. 

The Court cannot adjudicate this objection without further information. Accordingly, the 

Court now orders as follows:

1. Objectors are ordered to provide authority in support of their request that the Court 

order the Special Master to produce his time records. This authority must be contained in a brief 

of no more than five pages, which must be filed by March 8, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The Special 

Master may, but is not required to, file a response by March 11, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. of no more than 

five pages. 

2. Lead Counsel is ordered to either (a) file all requested documents on the Case 

Anywhere docket and also file an affidavit on this Court’s docket certifying this has been 

accomplished by March 8, 2016 at 5:00 p.m., and/or (b) file a log of such documents with the 

Court and SHOW CAUSE why any document submitted to Special Master Quinn that is not 

already on the Case Anywhere docket was a proper ex parte communication that should not be 

published on the Case Anywhere (or ECF) docket. If Lead Counsel chooses the latter option, their 

brief may be no longer than ten pages, excluding the log. Lead Counsel may also choose both 

courses of action, i.e., file some of the requested documents on the Case Anywhere docket (such 

as their email correspondence with Special Master Quinn) and show cause as to the remainder

(such as their attorney billing records).1

Unless the Court directs otherwise, there will be no Show Cause Hearing. The schedule 

for the Fairness Hearings on March 15, 2016 and April 19, 2016 remains unchanged by this order.

Should Objectors wish to respond or make a new objection based on any document 

disclosed pursuant to this Order, they will be permitted to do so at the Fairness Hearing on March 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

1

The use of these examples is not meant to suggest that any particular category of documents 

must, or must not, be filed on the Case Anywhere docket. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4456 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

15, 2016. However, no new objections will be permitted unless the objector can show why the 

objection could not have been made prior to disclosure of the documents ordered disclosed herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4456 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3