Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-470/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 DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS 

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER REGARDING DAUBERT

MOTIONS AND MOTIONS IN LIMINE

FOR CASES SUBJECT TO REMAND

It appears that at least one of the remaining Daubert motions may relate only to cases that 

will eventually be remanded for trial. See ECF No. 3176. The Court will not decide, and will 

defer to the transferor court on remand, any motion in limine that affects only a case that will 

eventually be remanded back to a transferor court for trial.1 See Bouchard v. CBS Corp., No. 11-

00458, 2012 WL 5462612, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2012) (concluding that “the ruling Defendant 

seeks is a matter better handled by the trial judge in the context of a motion in limine”); In re 

Sears, Roebuck & Co. Tools Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 05 C 4742, 2012 WL 3961295, at 

*1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2012) (entering a suggestion of remand because, in part, the “only ‘pretrial 

motions’ we can anticipate at this point would relate to the manner in which the case would be 

tried, such as motions in limine”); In re Cobra Tax Shelters Litig., No. 1:05ML9727WTLTAB, 

2009 WL 1010422, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2009) (“It is the Court’s view that the pending 

motions in limine on the admissibility of expert testimony would be best resolved by the court that 

 

1 Of course, where there are motions in limine that affect both actions to be tried in this forum as 

well as cases subject to remand, those motions are appropriately decided by the undersigned. In re 

Cessna 208 Series Aircraft Products Liab. Litig., No. 05-MD-1721-KHV, 2009 WL 1357234, at 

*2 (D. Kan. May 12, 2009) (“part of this Court's duty to get cases ‘trial-ready’ includes 

evidentiary rulings on common issues”). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4673 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

ultimately tries this case.”); see also M. Hugo & S. Helinski, 1 Litigating Tort Cases § 8:72 (online 

ed. 2015) (“Because the subject of motions in limine surround trial matters, the appropriate time to 

bring such motions is after remand to the transferor court – the trial court.”

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to submit a joint filing by June 20, 2016,

identifying any Daubert motion or motion in limine still pending which relates only to a case or 

cases subject to remand. Any party who believes that the undersigned should decide any motion 

on that list may so request and may submit a short explanation in support of that request. Parties 

should not discuss the timing of remand in this joint filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4673 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2