Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-375/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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917 

Case No. C-07-5944-SC 

ORDER ON CERTAIN LETTER 

This Order Relates To: BRIEFS 

ALL ACTIONS 

The Court has before it two letter briefs, again calling 

before it questions the Court thought long since resolved. In ECF 

No. 4031, certain Defendants make requests regarding which matters 

will be decided upon Ninth Circuit law versus which will be 

remanded without decision. These same Defendants also make 

requests with respect to oral argument on certain motions. In ECF 

No. 4038, certain Direct Action Plaintiffs suggest that the Court 

has already answered these questions. 

The Court believes it has answered many if not all of these 

questions previously. This Order is issued to respond to the 

letter briefs and is meant strictly to help eliminate any 

confusion. It does not change any previous or pending Order. 

The Court will not permit re-litigation of any matter that has 

already been decided and the Court will not remand already-decided 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4052 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California 

motions with the open invitation to re-litigate them. Doing so 

would negate the purposes for which the cases were consolidated 

into a single Multidistrict Litigation case in the first place. 

For example, insofar as the Court has already decided that certain 

cases do or do not fall under Illinois Brick and Royal Printing, 

those rulings stand. 

As to matters not yet decided, the relevant Special Master -- 

Magistrate Judge (Ret.) James Larson -- shall adjudicate all 

designated pretrial matters per his Appointment Order. That Order 

expressly excludes matters assigned to Judge (Ret.) Vaughn Walker, 

such as discovery disputes and disputes arising during the course 

of depositions. That Order expressly includes: (1) 24-29 motions 

for summary judgment presently pending; (2) 40 motions in limine 

presently pending; (3) 4 Daubert motions presently pending (to the 

degree the Special Master can resolve or limit the issues connected 

to such motions); and (4) motions for cases that will be remanded 

to a different jurisdiction of origin which Judge Larson believes 

can be decided applying Ninth Circuit law without any significant 

risk of conflicting circuit law resulting in appellate issues. The 

Court is presently cognizant of 18 such motions where parties 

already agree that the motion can be decided under the law of the 

Ninth Circuit. In addition, at the discretion of the Special 

Master or the Court, the Special Master may consider any motion 

filed on or after August 7, 2015, which is deemed of a similar ilk 

to the other designated pretrial matters such that review by the 

Special Master is appropriate. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4052 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California 

If Judge Larson believes a motion is or is not appropriate for 

decision under Ninth Circuit law, he is free to so advise the 

Court, and the Court will make the final decision. 

Oral argument may be held or skipped at the discretion of the 

Special Master or the Court. The Court does not require Judge 

Larson to hold oral argument because the Court's initial review of 

designated pretrial matters suggests many of them may be 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument per Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: September 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4052 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 3