Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-369/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 ORDER RE COORDINATION OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS PAGE 1 OF 6

Vaughn R Walker 

Law Office of Vaughn R Walker

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 871-2888

Fax: (415) 871-2890

vrw@judgewalker.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

ALL CASES 

 MDL No 1917

 Master Case No 3:07-cv-05944SC

ORDER RE COORDINATION OF 

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4015 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 6
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 ORDER RE COORDINATION OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS PAGE 2 OF 6

On June 8, 2015, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation 

regarding Mitsubishi’s Motion to Compel ViewSonic’s Percipient Witness Depositions and 

Coordination of Discovery (ECF No 3866), requesting that any interested parties submit letter 

briefs addressing whether a discovery motion in this case should remain pending despite the 

moving party’s settlement with the adverse party or withdrawal of that pending motion. In the 

long course of this litigation, various parties have settled while other parties remain. The 

undersigned has considered the letter briefs submitted on this issue and orders as follows.

Discovery in this multi-district litigation has been governed by the court’s April 

12, 2012 Order re Discovery and Case Management Protocol (ECF No 1128) (“Discovery 

Protocol”), which requires that:

 “[d]iscovery in all actions transferred to this MDL proceeding shall be 

coordinated,”

 counsel “shall be responsible for coordination of discovery in all actions 

transferred to this MDL proceeding,”

 “All CRT Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel shall engage in their best 

efforts to conduct discovery efficiently and without duplication,”

 “Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Interim Lead Counsel 

for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Individual Action Plaintiff Liaison Counsel, and 

State Attorneys General shall consult in good faith in an effort to propound joint 

written discovery requests, but to the extent separate written discovery is 

served, plaintiffs shall not duplicate interrogatories, requests for admission, and 

requests for documents,”

 “Defendants shall consult in good faith in an effort to propound joint written

discovery requests, but to the extent separate written discovery is served, 

Defendants shall not duplicate interrogatories, requests for admission, and 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4015 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 6
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 ORDER RE COORDINATION OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS PAGE 3 OF 6

requests for documents. Duplication is a proper objection to written discovery 

requests.” Discovery Protocol at 14.

Thus, discovery must be coordinated by all counsel, who must use their best efforts to conduct 

discovery efficiently and without duplication.

The Discovery Protocol also requires Defendants to produce to the Individual 

Action Plaintiffs and the State Attorneys General “[a]ll discovery previously produced by the 

Defendants to plaintiffs in the above-captioned action.” Id at 15. The parties “may use this 

previously-produced discovery” for “discovery, in pretrial motions, at trial, or for any other 

purpose to the same degree as if the discovery was provided in response to requests 

propounded by the Individual Action Plaintiffs or the State Attorneys General.” Id.

The Discovery Protocol requires service of all “discovery requests, including 

written discovery, deposition notices, or subpoenas served in this MDL proceeding” on “Interim 

Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs, each State Attorney General, and Liaison Counsel for Individual Action Plaintiffs . . . 

and on counsel for each defendant. Id at 16. Thus, except for counsel for the Individual Action 

Plaintiffs, each party to this action must be served with all discovery requests. Having reviewed 

numerous discovery responses in this MDL, the undersigned observes that generally, discovery

responses are served on all parties.

Under this Discovery Protocol, the plaintiffs and defendants have respectively

coordinated discovery, with certain counsel taking the lead on different topics but expecting to 

receive the benefits of other parties’ discovery. All parties benefit from this coordinated 

discovery protocol.

The main arguments set forth in opposition to this discovery approach of 

allowing another party to stand in the shoes of a settling party with respect to a discovery 

motion are: (1) the other party did not sign onto the discovery request, join in the motion or 

participate in any meet and confer discussions; (2) a discovery dispute is rendered moot by the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4015 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 6
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 ORDER RE COORDINATION OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS PAGE 4 OF 6

specific moving party’s settlement and withdrawal of the motion; and (3) a discovery 

respondent may have settled with the expectation that its discovery obligations would end as a 

result of settlement. The undersigned finds persuasive the position articulated by counsel for 

Chunghwa Picture Tubes and LG Electronics, that “the Defendants did not – and could not –

move independently on these requests and instead understood that the Motion would apply 

equally to all parties given the consolidated nature of these proceedings.” 5/28/15 R Brass 

Letter at 1. Indeed, due to the coordinated discovery, it is reasonable for the parties in this 

case to allow another party to take the lead on a certain aspect of discovery and if that party 

settles, to have a non-settling party take over the lead on that discovery. The undersigned has 

considered the mootness and settlement expectations arguments and does not find them 

compelling. Any cases cited regarding mootness of a discovery motion do not appear relevant

to a multi-district, consolidated case such as this one, having strict requirements on 

coordinated discovery. Moreover, two settling parties may stipulate to the mootness of a 

discovery motion as between themselves, but should not be able to moot the discovery motion 

with respect to other, non-settling parties in a multi-district litigation requiring coordinated 

discovery. Parties should not be permitted to use settlement in a consolidated discovery case 

to escape their discovery obligations with respect to remaining parties. Furthermore, the 

benefit of not having to deal with aggressive discovery counsel, to the extent it may have been 

part of the motivation for settlement, is obtained.

As a result, the undersigned finds that it would not be reasonable to require a

party to have signed onto a discovery request, participated in meet-and-confer discussions or 

joined in a discovery motion, in order to benefit from and continue with the motion. Instead, 

the undersigned finds that the interests of efficient discovery as set forth in the Discovery 

Protocol and justice would best be served by allowing any party to take over and continue a 

discovery motion filed by another party after the filing party has settled its dispute and 

withdrawn its role in the motion. This will be allowed only with respect to the motions 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4015 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 6
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 ORDER RE COORDINATION OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS PAGE 5 OF 6

addressed by the parties in response to the June 8, 2015 Order (ECF No 3866) or the May 28, 

2015 Request for Status re Motions (ECF No 3857), since the parties have been notified of their

opportunity to be heard on this issue.

Therefore, the following discovery motions or discovery disputes shall be 

deemed pending or at issue notwithstanding the filing party’s settlement or withdrawal of its 

role in the motion:

(1) The IPP’s 9/12/14 and 9/19/14 motions to compel supplemental 

interrogatory responses from Toshiba may be taken over by Liaison Counsel 

for the Direct Action Plaintiffs or by counsel to be agreed upon by the 

remaining plaintiffs;

(2) Toshiba’s 9/12/14 motion to compel sufficient discovery responses from Best 

Buy may be taken over by counsel for the Chunghwa defendants (see 7/7/15 

R Brass Letter), counsel for the Thomson defendants (see 7/7/15 K Osborn 

Letter) or counsel to be agreed upon by the remaining defendants;

(3) Toshiba’s 9/12/14 motion to compel Sears/Kmart to provide additional 

discovery regarding their private label program (see 8/3/15 K Osborn letter) 

may be taken over by counsel for the Thomson Defendants or by counsel to 

be agreed upon by the remaining defendants;

(4) Mitsubishi’s 11/18/14 motion to compel ViewSonic percipient witness 

depositions may be taken over by counsel for Chunghwa or Thomson or by 

counsel agreed upon by the remaining defendants; and

(5) Mitsubishi’s 11/5/14 motion to compel ViewSonic sales discovery (ECF No 

3401 at 7; ECF No 3870; 7/7/15 R Brass Letter at 3) may be taken over by 

counsel for Chunghwa or by counsel agreed upon by the remaining 

defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4015 Filed 08/24/15 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4015 Filed 08/24/15 Page 6 of 6