Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03359/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03359-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FATEMAH AZIZIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs.

 v.

FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 03-3359 SBA

CLASS ACTION 

ORDER

[Docket No. 475] 

On March 28, 2006, this Court issued an Order instructing the Coordinated Objectors to inform

the Court, no later than March 31, 2006, whether the Coordinated Objectors' Motion to Compel Class

Counsel's Time Sheets and Expense Summaries [Docket No. 475] was being withdrawn in light of the

Coordinated Objectors' statement, at the March 8, 2006 hearing before Special Master Charles Renfrew,

that the Motion was moot. 

On March 31, 2006, the Coordinated Objectors filed a Withdrawal of their Motion to Compel

Class Counsel's Time Sheets Except as to Expenses [Docket No. 614]. In the Withdrawal, the

Coordinated Objectors state that they are withdrawing their Motion to Compel Class Counsel's Time

Sheets "except as to Class Counsel's expense records." Attached to the Coordinated Objectors'

Withdrawal, however, is an excerpt of the transcript of the March 8, 2006 hearing showing that Mr.

Toups, on behalf of the Coordinated Objectors, expressly stated that the entire Motion to Compel was

moot. See Withdrawal at Ex. A. Indeed, according to what has been produced to the Court, there

appears to have been no further discussion at the March 8, 2006 hearing with regard Class Counsel's

expense summaries. 

The March 8, 2006 hearing before Special Master Renfrew was specifically designed to address

both the Motion to Compel [Docket No. 475] and the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Docket

Case 4:03-cv-03359-SBA Document 619 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

No. 451] in order to develop an adequate record so that the Special Master could make an informed

recommendation to this Court. Regardless of their rationale for the decision, it is quite clear to this

Court that the Coordinated Objectors expressly declined to pursue the Motion to Compel when given

the opportunity to do so. The Coordinated Objectors' current contention that they have a new basis to

file a renewed motion to compel Class Counsel's expense summaries – based on their Motion for

Reconsideration of Total Fee Award and Opposition to Class Counsel's Petition for Attorney Fees and

Expenses [Docket No. 617] – is irrelevant to the Court's determination of the instant Motion to Compel,

which has been pending for almost a year. Indeed, the Coordinated Objectors' decision to seek

duplicative relief lends further support to the Court's conclusion that the May 17, 2005 Motion to

Compel is either moot or unnecessarily redundant. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Coordinated Objectors' Motion to Compel Class

Counsel's Time Sheets and Expense Summaries [Docket No. 475] is DENIED AS MOOT. The

Coordinated Objectors are hereby reminded that, to the extent they are seeking relief from this Court

by way of a motion, they are responsible for prosecuting the motion in a timely fashion by setting it for

hearing before the Special Master in an expeditious manner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 3/31/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03359-SBA Document 619 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2