Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-399/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 SHORTEN 

TIME AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Now before the Court is Objector Douglas W. St. John’s motion to shorten time to hear his 

motion to amend the order appointing Special Master Martin Quinn. ECF Nos. 4204 (motion to 

shorten time); 4203 (motion to amend order of appointment); 4077 (order of appointment). 

St. John first appeared in the case on October 8, 2015 when he filed his objection to the 

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for award of attorneys’ fees and a conditional objection to 

their motion for settlement. ECF No. 4106. At the time he filed his objection, he was on notice 

regarding the terms of the Special Master’s Order of Appointment, which was entered in 

September 2015. Nonetheless, St. John waited 43 days after objecting to file his motion for an 

order shortening time. On these facts, St. John fails to show the good cause required for an order 

shortening time to the extent he seeks. 

The Court will shorten time slightly, however, so that the underlying motion to amend can 

be heard on December 15, 2015 as part of the case management conference scheduled on that date. 

See ECF No. 4164. Having read St. John’s motion to amend, the Court is considering (among 

other possibilities) amending the final sentence of Paragraph Seven of the Special Master’s order 

of appointment to add the phrase, “, subject to reallocation by the Court.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

53(g) (“the court must fix the master's compensation on the basis and terms stated in the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4206 Filed 11/23/15 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

appointing order, but the court may set a new basis and terms after giving notice and an 

opportunity to be heard”); Aird v. Ford Motor Co., 86 F.3d 216, 221 (D.C. Cir. 1996), amended

(Aug. 12, 1996) (“the district court enjoys broad discretion to allocate the master's fees as it thinks 

best under the circumstances of the case”). The parties should be prepared to address this proposal 

as well as any other arguments raised in St. John’s motion or in oppositions thereto. 

Oppositions to St. John’s motion to amend are due by December 4, 2015 and are limited to 

10 pages of text. Where parties or objectors have the same interests or seek the same outcome, the 

Court orders parties and objectors to consolidate their responses to the maximum extent possible. 

St. John may, but is not required to, file a reply brief of not more than 5 pages by December 10, 

2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4206 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 2