Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-430/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 INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE 

PREVIOUSLY-EXCLUDED 

DOCUMENTS

On March 2, 2016, Mr. Mario N. Alioto, Lead Counsel for the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs 

(“IPPs”), filed a Motion to Strike Previously-Excluded Documents Attached Again to the 

Bonsignore Affidavit. ECF No. 4451 (“Mot.”). The motion asks the Court to strike certain 

documents filed by attorney Robert J. Bonsignore and to issue sanctions against him. On March 8, 

2016, Mr. Bonsignore filed a timely opposition. ECF No. 4471. The Court will GRANT the 

motion to strike and DENY the motion for sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

The evidence at issue has been disallowed on multiple separate occasions.

On December 15, 2015, Mr. Bonsignore attempted to file a Joinder and Reply in Support 

of Objections before Special Master Martin Quinn. See ECF No. 4440-1, Ex. A. After Lead 

Counsel objected, Special Master Quinn denied leave to file a late reply. See ECF No. 4263

(“Order”). 

On December 24, 2015, the Court received an objection to the Order. ECF No. 4263. On 

December 30, 2015, after reviewing the Order and the objection, the Court overruled the 

objection. See ECF No. 4274 at 2. Accordingly, the evidence attached to the late reply brief was 

never received by the Special Master, and the Special Master’s Order was adopted by the Court.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4482 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 4
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

On January 7, 2016, Mr. Bonsignore again sought leave to submit the same documents

disallowed in the Order. On January 21, 2016, the Special Master denied the request, calling Mr. 

Bonsignore’s request “a blatant end-run around the Court’s denial of [Mr. Bonsignore’s prior] 

request to submit this late ‘evidence.’” ECF No. 4329 (“R&R”) at 2. The Special Master levied 

sanctions against Mr. Bonsignore in the form of requiring him to pay “the entire fee charged by 

JAMS for the Special Master’s time in dealing with this request.” Id. The Court has previously 

adopted the R&R in its entirety. See ECF No. 4473.1

Mr. Bonsignore has now attached the same documents to his objection to the Report and 

Recommendation at ECF No. 4351, which pertains to the pending IPP settlement. See ECF No. 

4440-1 (including attachments). This would appear to be Mr. Bonsignore’s fourth attempt to 

place these same documents before the Court. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[D]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets . . . .” Atchison, Topeka & 

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998). The district judge “must 

issue a scheduling order . . . after consulting with the parties’ attorneys . . . at a scheduling 

conference . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). “Violations of a scheduling order [under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)] may result in sanctions, including dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2)(C).” Dreith v. Nu 

Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 787 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Atchison, 146 F.3d at 1073). “The 

Special Master shall have all the authority provided in Rule 53(c), including but not limited to the 

authority to . . . issue orders awarding non-contempt sanctions, including, without limitation, the 

award of attorneys’ fees, as provided by Rules 37 and 45. The Special Master may determine 

disputes arising from failing to abide by sanctions set forth by the Special Master.” See ECF No. 

4077 at 5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(c) provides that the Special Master may “regulate 

 

1

The Order appointing Special Master Quinn, ECF Nos. 4077, 4298 (amending ECF No. 4077), 

states that “[a]ny party wishing to file objections or a motion to adopt or modify the Special 

Master’s orders, reports and/or recommendations must file such objections or motion with the 

Court within 14 days from the day the Special Master filed the order, report, and/or

recommendation via ECF.” ECF No. 4077. Mr. Bonsignore’s motion includes an objection to the 

sanction, but the objection was filed more than 14 days after issuance of the R&R. Accordingly, 

the objection is OVERRULED as untimely. Insofar as Mr. Bonsignore’s motion could be 

construed as requesting permission to file a late objection, the request is DENIED.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4482 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Northern District of California

all proceedings” and “take all appropriate measures to perform the assigned duties fairly and 

efficiently.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c)(1)-(2). 

The Court applies the same law to Mr. Bonsignore’s attempt to introduce evidence in the 

district court evidence not considered by the Special Master as it would to an attempt to introduce 

evidence that had not been considered by a Magistrate Judge. Upon review of the opinion of a 

magistrate judge, 

a district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider 

evidence presented for the first time in a party’s objection to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation. We emphasize, however, that 

in making a decision on whether to consider newly offered evidence, 

the district court must actually exercise its discretion, rather than 

summarily accepting or denying the motion.

United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 

1202, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Howell but noting an providing special consideration for 

pro se litigants); Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2013) (same); Warren v. Apker, 

615 F. App’x 443, 444 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 2015) (applying Howell to find no abuse of discretion).

III. DISCUSSION

Although the Court may have the power to consider for the first time evidence never 

considered by the Special Master, it is a power that should be exercised rarely and cautiously. The 

purpose of appointing a Special Master is not only to receive the benefit of his or her expertise, but 

also to reduce the evidence and issues that must be considered by the district court. “It would 

defeat this purpose if the district court was required to hear matters anew on issues never presented 

to the magistrate.” Borden v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987)

(observing also that “[p]arties must take before the magistrate, not only their ‘best shot’ but all of 

their shots” (citation omitted)). 

If the Court considers evidence that was not before the Special Master, it loses the benefit 

of the Special Master’s expertise, and it opens the process to the submission of an unlimited 

number of additional documents. This massive antitrust conspiracy has been pending for more 

than eight years. The docket contains more than 4400 entries, and it grows daily. Any sensible 

process to bring this case to resolution will be one that narrows, not expands, the matters for the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4482 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Northern District of California

Court’s consideration. See Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1131 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A primary purpose of appointing a special master is to narrow the issues before 

the district court judge to facilitate an efficient and timely resolution of complex or highlytechnical issues . . . .”). That this evidence was repeatedly struck by the Special Master militates 

even further away from the Court considering it, because it would unfairly disadvantage the many 

litigants in this case who have complied with the rules. The Court will grant the motion to strike. 

The motion for sanctions is denied. As previously noted, it is within the Court’s discretion 

to consider new evidence. By extension, therefore, it was permissible for Mr. Bonsignore to ask 

the Court to exercise that discretion. That the Court effectively has now denied his request does 

not mean his conduct was sanctionable. 

CONCLUSION

The IPPs’ motion to strike is GRANTED. The IPPs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.

The Court also notes that several arguments in the briefs seemed directed less at the instant 

motion and more at influencing the Court’s evaluation of Special Master Quinn’s Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 4351. The Court has not considered the briefs for the latter purpose. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4482 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 4