Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-374/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 APPOINTING SPECIAL 

This Order Relates To: MASTER 

ALL ACTIONS 

The Court has suggested the appointment of U.S. Magistrate 

Judge (Ret.) James Larson as an additional Special Master for this 

case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C), 53(b)(1). The Court gave 

the parties an opportunity to be heard at a status conference on 

August 7, 2015, and again permitted parties to submit objections 

via an order to show cause. See Order of the Court dated August 

17, 2015, ECF No. 3986 ("Show Cause Order"). Certain parties 

objected. See ECF No. 4021. Accordingly, the Court ordered a 

second hearing to ensure parties had a full, fair opportunity to be 

fully heard on the matter, and broke with its normal tradition of 

not issuing any intended ruling to ensure parties could respond 

meaningfully to the Court's thoughts. See Order of the Court dated 

August 31, 2015, ECF No. 4029 ("Hearing Order"). Pursuant to the 

Hearing Order, a hearing was held on September 11, 2015. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 9
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 

Nothing during the hearing substantially changed the opinion 

of the Court. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the reasoning set forth 

in its Hearing Order, finds that 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 458 do not bar 

this appointment, and OVERRULES any objections to Judge Larson. 

The Court further finds that considerations of fairness, the 

prevention of undue delay, and the amount of judicial resources 

required to adjudicate the designated pretrial matters (including 

at least 86-91 complex pending motions which must all be decided 

within four months) constitute "exceptional circumstances" which 

justify a Special Master. See Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors 

v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 560 (N.D. Cal. 1987). 

In reaching this decision, the Court is cognizant of the 

admonition in La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 258-59 

(1957). There, the Supreme Court admonished a District Court for 

appointing a Special Master on the eve of trial to assist in an 

antitrust case after years of litigation and where the Court had 

already itself decided most pretrial motions. "The master, a 

member of the bar, was to hear and decide the entire case, subject 

to review by the District Judge under the 'clearly erroneous' 

test." Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 274 (1976) (distinguishing 

La Buy without eroding it). Here, conversely, the Court expressly 

retains control of the trial, reviews all matters by the Special 

Master de novo (as set forth in greater detail below), and in 

addition to simple congestion cites the need to complete an 

incredible volume of highly complex motion work to ensure a trial 

schedule that will be fair and equitable to all involved parties. 

Moreover, the Special Master is not an inexperienced attorney or 

random member of the bar chosen by the parties to increase their 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 9
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 

own likelihood of success. Rather, he is a retired U.S. Magistrate 

Judge chosen by the Court, with a history of being a third party 

neutral and making these very types of judicial recommendations. 

See United States v. State of Wash., 157 F.3d 630, 660 (9th Cir. 

1998) (Beezer, J., concurring) (discussing the need for complexity 

of the circumstances and neutrality of the Special Master). Thus, 

this appointment "aid[s] [this] judge[] in the performance of 

specific judicial duties, as they may arise in the progress of a 

cause," La Buy, 352 U.S. 249, 256, and is substantially similar to 

appointing a Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Mathews, 423 U.S. 

at 274-75. Accordingly, appointment of a Special Master is proper. 

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 53, U.S. Magistrate Judge (Ret.) James Larson is 

appointed as Special Master to supervise and preside over the 

"designated pretrial matters" in this case, as defined herein. 

The Special Master has filed a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 

455 stating that there is no ground for disqualification. 

1. Scope of Duties 

The Special Master shall adjudicate all designated pretrial 

matters. This specifically excludes discovery disputes in this 

case, and also excludes disputes arising during the course of 

depositions. Such disputes have been previously assigned to Judge 

Walker (Ret.), whose appointment as a Special Master remains 

undisturbed by this separate appointment of a second, distinct 

Special Master. Rather, designated pretrial matters shall include 

24-29 motions for summary judgment presently pending, 40 motions in 

limine presently pending, and (to the degree the Special Master can 

resolve or limit the issues connected to such motions) 4 Daubert 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 9
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 

motions presently pending. Designated pretrial matters also 

includes motions for cases that will be remanded to a different 

jurisdiction of origin which Judge Larson believes can be decided 

applying Ninth Circuit law without any significant risk of 

conflicting circuit law resulting in appellate issues. The Court 

is presently cognizant of 18 such motions in cases subject to 

remand that parties have previously agreed can be decided under the 

law of the Ninth Circuit without causing any potential difficulties 

resulting from differing circuit laws at such time as the case is 

remanded to its judicial district of origin for trial. See ECF No. 

3952-1. Finally, designated pretrial matters may, at the 

discretion of the Special Master or the Court, include any motion 

filed on or after August 7, 2015, which is deemed of a similar ilk 

to the other designated pretrial matters such that review by the 

Special Master is appropriate. 

This Order shall apply to all cases currently pending in MDL 

No. 1917 and to all related actions that have been or will be 

originally filed in, transferred to, or removed to this Court and 

assigned thereto (collectively, "the MDL proceedings"). This Order 

is binding on all parties and their counsel in all cases currently 

pending or subsequently made part of these proceedings and shall 

govern each case in the proceedings unless it explicitly states 

that it relates to specific cases. 

2. Scope of Authority 

The Special Master shall have most of the authority (subject 

only to the limits set forth herein) provided in Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 53(c), including, but not limited to: the authority 

to set the date, time, and place for all hearings determined by the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 9
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 

Special Master to be necessary; to direct the issuance of 

subpoenas; to make rulings on objections or otherwise resolve 

disputes arising during the course of hearings held before him; to 

preside over hearings (whether telephonic or in-person); to take 

evidence in connection with the designated pretrial matters; to 

award fee allocations and non-contempt sanctions provided by 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 45 insofar as such rules 

are deemed to apply to the designated pretrial matters; and to 

recommend contempt sanctions. The Special Master may determine 

disputes arising from failing to abide by sanctions set forth by 

the Special Master. The Court's initial review of designated 

pretrial matters suggests many of them may be appropriate for 

resolution without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The 

Special Master is therefore delegated authority to determine 

whether holding oral argument is required for any given matter or 

whether the Special Master can draft a Report and Recommendation 

("R&R") based solely upon the briefs and evidence as submitted. 

3. Procedures for Briefing Submitted to Special Master 

The Special Master may consider disputes presented orally, 

presented in person or by telephone, in a letter brief, or in 

formal motions, so long as the dispute is within the scope of his 

duties. If additional briefing is deemed required, briefing 

schedules will be determined by the Special Master. However, the 

Special Master may not disclose his resolution of such disputes, 

except as set forth below. 

4. Preservation of Record 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(2)(c), the 

Special Master shall maintain files consisting of all documents 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 9
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 

submitted by the parties and any written orders, findings, and/or 

R&Rs. Any order issued by the Special Master shall be emailed to 

the parties. Such emailing shall fulfill the Special Master's duty 

to serve the order on the parties. However, as orders must also be 

filed with the clerk and thus captured in the Electronic Court 

Filing ("ECF") system, orders shall not contain any resolution or 

proposed resolution of any dispute, nor shall they in any way 

indicate how any dispute may be resolved pursuant. Such 

information shall be captured strictly in R&Rs. 

All of the Special Master's R&Rs are to be provided directly 

and only to Chambers for in camera review, and the Special Master 

is not to share R&Rs with parties or otherwise allow their contents 

to be made known to any party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). Once 

the Court has determined that settlements are finalized to a 

sufficient degree and the proper time has arrived to act on the 

R&Rs, the Court will publish through ECF the collected R&Rs to the 

parties for review, opportunity to be heard, and objections. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1)-(2). Nothing in this Order does or should 

be construed to grant the Special Master permission to make known 

any decision or through any means indicate the substance thereof to 

any party without express, case-by-case, pre-approval by the Court. 

Any records of the Special Master's activities other than 

written orders, findings, and/or recommendations shall be filed in 

accordance with paragraph 5(a) and 5(b) of this Order. 

5. Action on Orders, Reports, or Recommendations

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(2)(D) and 

subject to the restrictions set forth above, the procedures 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 9
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 

described in paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) herein shall govern any 

action on the Special Master's orders and R&Rs. 

a. Time Limits and Standard for Review 

Any party wishing to file objections to the Special Master's 

orders, reports and/or recommendations must file such objection 

with the Court within 10 days from the day the Special Master's 

order, report and/or recommendation is filed. Any opposition 

thereto must be received within seven (7) days thereafter, and any 

reply must be received within four (4) days of the opposition. 

This expedited schedule will ensure the Court is able to keep any 

trial date set. Review of the Special Master's orders will be 

subject to the same procedures for orders by a Magistrate Judge and 

will be reviewed de novo for all matters, including procedural 

matters, unless the parties stipulate otherwise and the Court 

approves the stipulation. See Civil L.R. 72-2; see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 53(f)(2)-(5); Show Cause Order. 

b. Filing the Record for Review 

The party filing the objection shall submit with such 

objection any record necessary for the Court to review the Special 

Master's order or R&R, including any transcripts of proceedings 

before the Special Master and any documents submitted by the 

parties in connection with the Special Master's order, report, 

and/or recommendation. Failure to provide the record shall 

constitute grounds for the Court to overrule the objection or deny 

the motion. However, insofar as the information has already been 

filed with the Court via ECF prior to the appointment of the 

Special Master or else is an R&R of the Special Master as published 

by the Court, the party may simply file any new materials presented 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 9
8 

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 

to the Special Master and include within their objection the ECF 

number of the earlier filed information and related declarations, 

responses, replies, and R&R(s), identified by ECF number. 

6. Ex Parte Communications 

To facilitate the fulfillment of his duties under this Order, 

the Special Master may (and for R&Rs must always) communicate ex 

parte to the Court to the extent that he deems necessary and 

appropriate. In addition, the Special Master may communicate ex 

parte with a party, but only for the limited purposes of 

administrative matters such as scheduling hearings, telephone calls 

or briefing, if such arrangements cannot be made in a timely manner 

by contacting the Special Master's administrative assistant. 

7. Compensation

The Special Master's hourly fee shall be $600.00, and that of 

any law clerk he should employ shall be $200.00. The Special 

Master shall, in his discretion, allocate and assess the payment of 

his fees among the parties, including allocation of all of his fees 

to one party should he determine that the party has acted in bad 

faith. The parties shall pay the Special Master's fees within ten 

(10) calendar days of assessment, unless otherwise excused by the 

Special Master or the Court. 

8. Diligence 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(2), the 

Court hereby directs the Special Master to proceed with all 

reasonable diligence in performing these duties. 

9. Notification to the Special Master of Mooted Motions 

In accordance with the Show Cause Order, parties shall notify 

the Special Master of any settlements reached and associated 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 8 of 9
9 

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 

motions thereby mooted otherwise pending before the Special Master 

within one (1) business day of reaching a settlement. Notice shall 

be given in whatever manner deemed convenient by the Special 

Master, and shall be separate from any notice to or approvals 

otherwise required by the Court (whose procedures remain 

unchanged). 

Within seven (7) days of this order or according to such 

schedule as the Special Master may otherwise publish, all parties 

with pending designated pretrial matters shall contact the Special 

Master to discuss the execution of his duties in connection with 

this order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: September 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4051 Filed 09/11/15 Page 9 of 9