Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-337/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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART CALIFORNIA 

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION 

TO TRANSFER OR EXTEND TIME 

FOR HAGUE CONVENTION 

PROCESS TO DEPOSE LEO MINK 

This Order Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS 

 Now before the Court is the California Attorney General's 

("AG") motion to transfer to San Francisco Superior Court the Hague 

Convention1 process for obtaining the deposition of Mr. Leo Mink in 

the Netherlands. ECF No. 3500 ("Mot."). In the alternative, the AG 

requests an extension of time to complete the process of obtaining 

Mink's testimony. Samsung SDI opposes. ECF No. 3508 ("Opp'n"). 

The motion is fully briefed, and for the reasons set forth below it 

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Mink is a Dutch national and former employee of a non-party 

 

1

 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or 

Commercial Matters, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 

7444 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1780) ("Hague Convention"). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3793 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 5
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 

subsidiary of Defendant Koninklijke Philips N.V. The AG believes 

that Mink has information relevant to her suit seeking recompense 

for California consumers for alleged price fixing in the cathode 

ray tube market. Matters related to discovery for that case were 

previously consolidated before this court. ECF No. 3500-2 

("Varanini Decl.") at ¶ 5. 

More than a year ago, the AG asked the Court to issue a letter 

of request to Dutch authorities seeking their aid in obtaining 

Mink's deposition through the process outlined in the Hague 

Convention. ECF No. 2328 ("Request"). The Court issued the letter 

of request. ECF No. 2362. Dutch authorities then misplaced the 

Court's letter, and asked that a new letter of request be sent, 

promising to expedite it once it reached the Netherlands. ECF No. 

2518 ("Second Request"). The Court issued that letter of request 

as well. ECF No. 2530. Once that letter was transmitted to the 

Netherlands, Dutch authorities transferred it to the Court of OostBrabant for execution. After Court of Oost-Brabant failed to 

promptly act on the letter of request and appoint a commissioner to 

effectuate the deposition, the Court granted an extension of time 

(over the opposition of Samsung SDI) to permit the deposition to go 

forward. ECF No. 2877. Since that time, the AG's office has 

contacted the Dutch court several times seeking to organize the 

deposition, but the Dutch court's progress has been gradual at 

best, and the necessary commissioner has still not been appointed. 

ECF No. 3500-2 ("Varanini Decl.") at ¶ 4. 

At the time the AG filed her motion, these cases were set for 

trial beginning on March 9, 2015 while the state court action was 

set for trial in July 2016. Pointing to that date and the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3793 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

potential inconvenience to the Court involved in both trying these 

complex matters and supervising the AG's discovery efforts in the 

Netherlands, the AG sought an order transferring this issue to 

Superior Court. At the same time, recognizing that the Court might 

(and in fact did) vacate the trial date, the AG made an alternative 

request that if the Court vacated the trial date it grant a further 

extension of time to complete the Hague Convention process. 

Samsung opposes both requests. 

In light of the Court's order vacating the trial date, the 

Court sees no practical reason to transfer this matter to Superior 

Court. As a result, the AG's motion to transfer is DENIED. The 

only remaining question is whether the Court should grant another 

extension of time to allow the discovery to be completed. 

Scheduling orders "may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Pretrial 

scheduling orders may be modified if the dates scheduled "cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus of the good cause inquiry is "on 

the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party 

was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id. As the undersigned 

has previously observed, "centering the good cause analysis on the 

moving party's diligence prevents parties from profiting from 

carelessness, unreasonability, or gamesmanship, while also not 

punishing parties for circumstances outside their control." In re 

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-5944-SC, 2014 WL 

4954634, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (citing Orozco v. Midland 

Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02585-KJM-CKD, 2013 WL 3941318, at 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3793 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

*3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)). 

As with the Court's previous order on the AG's issues with the 

Dutch Court, the delays at issue here were outside the AG's control 

and occurred despite the AG's diligence in pursuing Mink's 

deposition. See id. at *3. Once again, the AG has provided a 

declaration stating that despite repeated contacts with the Court 

of Oost-Brabant, the court has still not appointed the commissioner 

necessary to complete the examination. Varanini Decl. ¶ 4. While 

the Court cannot imagine why this request is taking Dutch 

authorities so long, the AG's submissions make clear the delays are 

not a result of "carelessness" on the AG's part. Johnson, 975 F.2d 

at 609. The request is straightforward and was made to Dutch 

authorities with ample time to execute the request. See CRT, 2014 

WL 4954634, at *3 & n.2 (citing empirical research demonstrating 

that "in the vast majority of cases, Hague Convention requests for 

oral testimony are resolved within six months"). The AG has gone 

so far as to hire a Dutch agent to seek resolution of the issue, 

apparently to no avail. Id. at *3. In short, simply because 

Dutch authorities have not pursued this deposition with the same 

diligence as the AG's office does not mean the AG's office should 

be barred from obtaining Mink's testimony. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3793 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

As a result, the Court finds that good cause exists to extend 

the relevant deadline, and thus the AG's motion to extend the 

deadline for completing the Hague Convention process is GRANTED. 

The relevant deadline shall be extended until 120 days from the 

signature date of this order. The AG is further instructed to 

notify the relevant authorities at the Court of Oost-Brabant of the 

Court-ordered deadline in the hopes that they will act more quickly 

in appointing a commissioner and conducting Mink's examination. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: March 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3793 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 5