Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-262/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 PRESERVING ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL 

 Case No. 07-5944; MDL NO. 1917

Kathy L. Osborn (pro hac vice) 

Ryan M. Hurley (pro hac vice) 

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 

300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Telephone: (317) 237-0300 

Facsimile: (317) 237-1000 

kathy.osborn@FaegreBD.com 

ryan.hurley@FaegreBD.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Thomson SA 

and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. 

Guido Saveri (22349) 

R. Alexander Saveri (173102) 

Geoffrey C. Rushing (126910) 

Travis L. Manfredi (281779) 

SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 

706 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 217-6810 

Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 

Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Crago d/b/a Dash Computers, Inc., et al. v. 

Technicolor SA, et al., No. 14-cv-02058 

Case No. 07-5944 SC

MDL No. 1917 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION 

OF ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL 

Judge: Hon. Samuel Conti 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2616 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL 

 Case No. 07-5944; MDL NO. 1917 

2 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Crago, d/b/a Dash Computers, Inc.; Arch 

Electronics, Inc.; Meijer, Inc.; Meijer Distribution, Inc.; Nathan Muchnick, Inc.; Princeton 

Display Technologies, Inc.; Radio & TV Equipment, Inc.; Studio Spectrum, Inc.; and Wettstein 

and Sons, Inc., d/b/a Wettsteins’s (collectively the “Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs” or “DPPs”), and 

Defendants Thomson S.A. (n.k.a. Technicolor S.A.) and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. 

(n.k.a. Technicolor USA, Inc.) (collectively, the “Thomson Defendants”) have conferred by and 

through their counsel and, subject to the Court’s approval, HEREBY STIPULATE AS 

FOLLOWS: 

WHEREAS, there is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of California a multidistrict consolidated proceeding comprised of actions brought on behalf of 

purported purchasers of cathode ray tubes (“CRT”) and CRT products, captioned as In re 

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-05944 SC (MDL No. 1917) (the 

“MDL Proceedings”); 

WHEREAS, the DPPs have filed a Class Action Complaint, which is now pending in this 

MDL, naming the Thomson Defendants as Defendants (the “DPP Complaint”); 

WHEREAS, the DPPs have previously filed a substantially similar Consolidated 

Amended Complaint alleging the same conduct and naming various other entities as Defendants; 

WHEREAS, certain other plaintiffs (the “Direct Action Plaintiffs” or “DAPs”) have filed 

substantially similar Complaints or Amended Complaints alleging the same conduct and naming 

the Thomson Defendants as Defendants; 

WHEREAS, the DAPs have also filed substantially similar Complaints or Amended 

Complaints alleging the same conduct and naming various other entities as Defendants; 

 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2009 and June 17, 2009, Defendants other than the Thomson 

Defendants filed several Motions to Dismiss the DPPs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (Dkt. 

463, 464, 466, 467, 474, 476, 479, 482, 485, 491, 492); 

WHEREAS, on March 30, 2010, the Court issued an Order ruling on the other 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the DPPs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (Dkt. 665); 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2616 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL 

 Case No. 07-5944; MDL NO. 1917 

3 

WHEREAS, on December 12, 2011, Defendants other than the Thomson Defendants 

filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the DPPs’ Consolidated Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. 1013); 

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order ruling on the other 

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the DPPs’ Consolidated 

Amended Complaint (Dkt. 1470); 

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2012, Defendants other than the Thomson Defendants filed 

Motions to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to certain DAPs (Dkt. 1316, 

1317, 1319); 

WHEREAS, on August 21, 2013, the Court issued an Order ruling on the other 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 1856); 

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, January 27, 2014, and February 7, 2014, Thomson 

SA filed Motions to Dismiss and/or Strike with Prejudice the DAPs’ Complaints or Amended 

Complaints (Dkt. 2235, 2355, 2373); 

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, January 16, 2014, and January 27, 2014, Thomson 

Consumer filed Motions to Dismiss and/or Strike with Prejudice the DAPs’ Complaints or 

Amended Complaints (Dkt. 2236, 2329, 2353); 

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2014, the Court issued an Order ruling on the Thomson 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and/or Strike with Prejudice the DAPs’ Complaints of Amended 

Complaints (Dkt. 2440); 

WHEREAS, Thomson Consumer’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the DPPs’ 

Complaint is May 30, 2014; 

WHEREAS, the DPPs have requested that Thomson SA waive service of their 

Complaint; 

WHEREAS, the DPPs and the Thomson Defendants wish to conserve judicial resources 

and avoid re-litigating issues previously decided by this Court while preserving any and all 

appeal rights of the DPPs and the Thomson Defendants; 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2616 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL 

 Case No. 07-5944; MDL NO. 1917 

4 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between counsel 

as follows: 

1. All motions decided in the MDL to date are deemed to have been raised by the 

Thomson Defendants against the DPP Complaint, and the arguments raised in any such motions 

are preserved for appellate purposes as if they had been made by the Thomson Defendants 

against the DPP Complaint. 

2. Thomson SA waives service of the DPP Complaint in accordance with Rule 4(d) 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3. The deadline for the Thomson Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the 

DPP Complaint shall be on or before July 30, 2014. 

Dated: May 30, 2014 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 

By: /s/ Kathy L. Osborn 

Kathy L. Osborn (pro hac vice) 

Ryan M. Hurley (pro hac vice) 

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 

300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Telephone: (317) 237-0300 

Facsimile: (317) 237-1000 

kathy.osborn@FaegreBD.com 

ryan.hurley@FaegreBD.com 

Jeffrey S. Roberts (pro hac vice) 

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 

3200 Wells Fargo Center 

1700 Lincoln Street 

Denver, CO 80203 

Telephone: (303) 607-3500 

Facsimile: (303) 607-3600 

jeff.roberts@FaegreBD.com 

Calvin L. Litsey (SBN 289659) 

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 

1950 University Avenue, Suite 450 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2279 

Telephone: (650) 324-6700 

Facsimile: (650) 324-6701 

calvin.litsey@FaegreBD.com 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2616 Filed 06/12/14 Page 4 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL 

 Case No. 07-5944; MDL NO. 1917 

5 

Stephen M. Judge (pro hac vice) 

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 

202 S. Michigan Street, Suite 1400 

South Bend, IN 46601 

Telephone: (574) 234-4149 

Facsimile: (574) 239-1900 

steve.judge@FaegreBD.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Thomson SA and Thomson 

Consumer Electronics, Inc. 

Dated: May 30, 2014 SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 

By: /s/ Guido Saveri 

Guido Saveri (22349) 

R. Alexander Saveri (173102) 

Geoffrey C. Rushing (126910) 

Travis L. Manfredi (281779) 

SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 

706 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 217-6810 

Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 

Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser 

Plaintiffs

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:___________________ ___________________________________ Hon. Samuel Conti 

United States District Judge 

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. 

Dated: May 30, 2014 By: /s/ Kathy L. Osborn 

June 12, 2014

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2616 Filed 06/12/14 Page 5 of 5