Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05634/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05634-47/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 

 - 1 - CASE NO. 07-CV-5634 CRB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR 

TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

All Actions 

Case No. 07-cv-5634 CRB (DMR) 

MDL No. 1913 

ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF AIR 

CARGO DOCUMENTS

 Plaintiffs have moved to compel the production of certain documents. On January 12, 

2012, the court conducted a hearing. On January 18, 2012, the court entered a written order (Dkt. 

621) summarizing the rulings made by the court on the record during the hearing. The court 

directed the parties to meet and confer on an agreed stipulation and order modeled on the 

stipulation and order in the action In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-5944 

–SC (Dkt. No. 952). The parties have met and conferred but report that they have been unable to 

reach agreement. Having considered the record on this motion and the submissions of the parties 

the court orders: 

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 631 Filed 02/14/12 Page 1 of 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 

 - 2 - CASE NO. 07-CV-5634 CRB 

 1. Plaintiffs may commence their review of the documents produced by those 

Defendants in this action who are also defendants in the In re Air Cargo Shipping Services 

Antitrust Litigation, E.D.N.Y. Case No. 06-MD-1775 (JG) (VVP) (“Air Cargo”) upon entry of 

the order set forth below, and shall conduct such review in the database constructed for the 

plaintiffs in the Air Cargo litigation, or on such other platform at their discretion. The terms of 

this order do not apply to any Air Cargo documents which Plaintiffs obtain through means other 

than the terms of this order, e.g., documents produced by any settling party, documents obtained 

by virtue of any third-party subpoena or Freedom of Information Act Request, or documents that 

become publicly available. 

 2. Plaintiffs may designate not more than 20 Air Cargo documents per deposition at 

least 21 days prior to the commencement of the deposition. Plaintiffs shall provide copies of 

these documents to Defendants at the time of designation. Defendants shall have 10 days to 

object to such designations. Any document as to which no objections are made shall be deemed 

produced herein. 

 3. In the event that Defendants have objections to any designated documents, the 

parties shall meet and confer regarding such objections. Objections that cannot be resolved via 

the meet and confer process shall be presented to the court in the joint letter brief format outlined 

in the Honorable Donna M. Ryu’s Standing Order (dated February 22, 2011). The parties shall 

file the referenced documents with the court when they submit their joint letter briefs. If such 

objections remain unresolved at the time of the deposition for which the documents have been 

designated, they may be used at the deposition, but the objection will remain subject to resolution 

by the court. In other words, if the Court later rules that an Air Cargo document is not 

discoverable in this case, deposition testimony relating to the document may be stricken. 

 4. Plaintiffs may designate a reasonable number of additional documents from the Air 

Cargo production for use in the above captioned litigation for purposes of providing them for 

review by Plaintiffs’ consultants and/or experts on a rolling basis. Plaintiffs shall designate such 

documents at least 35 days prior to the date they wish to provide the document(s) to a consultant 

and/or expert. Defendants shall have 14 days to object to such designations. Objections that 

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 631 Filed 02/14/12 Page 2 of 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 

 - 3 - CASE NO. 07-CV-5634 CRB 

cannot be resolved via the meet and confer process shall be presented to the Court in the joint 

letter brief format within seven (7) days of Defendants’ objections to the designation(s). 

Documents designated by Plaintiffs for review by Plaintiffs’ consultants and/or experts to which 

Defendants object may not be shared with Plaintiffs’ consultants and/or experts unless and until 

the Court issues a ruling overruling Defendants’ objection(s). Air Cargo documents that have 

been designated and deemed produced, either because Defendants have not objected or because 

the Court has overruled Defendants’ objections, may be shared with Plaintiffs’ consultants and/or 

experts. 

 5. Plaintiffs may designate a reasonable number of additional documents from the Air 

Cargo production for use in the above captioned litigation not later than sixty days before the 

non-expert discovery cut-off. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for 

objections by Defendants to such designations. The timeframe for such objections shall depend 

on the volume of Plaintiffs’ designation production. Plaintiffs will use best efforts to avoid overdesignation. Any document as to which no objections are made shall be deemed produced herein 

 6. If the Court sustains any objection by Defendants to documents identified by 

Plaintiffs, such documents shall not be used in this litigation. Any ruling allowing Plaintiffs’ 

designations will be without prejudice to later objections to use of such documents at a hearing, 

trial, or any other proceeding. 

 7. All Air Cargo documents reviewed by Plaintiffs shall be handled in conformity 

with the Protective Order entered in the above captioned litigation (Dkt. 404, 415) and the 

Protective Order in the Air Cargo matter (Dkt. 552, 599). To the extent that there is any 

inconsistency between the terms of those two orders, the order entered in this case shall govern. 

The confidentiality designations made by Defendants with respect to their Air Cargo productions 

shall be deemed to have been made by Defendants pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this 

matter. Challenges to confidentiality, if any, shall be governed by the Protective Order in this 

matter (Dkt. 404, 415). 

8. This order may be modified by subsequent order of the Court on a showing of 

good cause. 

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 631 Filed 02/14/12 Page 3 of 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 

 - 4 - CASE NO. 07-CV-5634 CRB 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 14, 2012 DONNA M. RYU 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 631 Filed 02/14/12 Page 4 of 4