Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-179/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 DISCOVERY DISPUTES

This Order Relates To:

ALL CASES

The Court has read and considered the parties' letters 

regarding the need for a discovery master in this case. See ECF 

Nos. 1954, 1967, 1968, 2013. The Court proposes that the Honorable 

Vaughn Walker, United States District Judge (Retired), serve in 

that capacity. The parties shall file letters of support or 

opposition to this decision within seven (7) days of this Order's 

signature date. Any party objecting to this appointment shall 

propose an alternative discovery magistrate. To minimize 

duplicative filings and to encourage efficient resolution of the 

parties' disputes, the parties are encouraged to meet and confer on 

this matter, and to file joint letters. After these letters are 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2095 Filed 11/04/13 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

For the Northern District of California

submitted, the Court will consider the parties' positions and issue 

an order regarding discovery in this case.

As to the direct purchaser plaintiffs' ("DPPs") dispute with 

Samsung SDI America, Inc. ("SDIA") over SDIA's pending motion to 

compel, ECF No. 1908, the Court notes that it informed the parties 

at its September 13, 2013 hearing that discovery motions were to be 

filed before the Court. SDIA argues that its motion is properly 

before the Court despite having been filed as a letter brief before 

the now-discharged Special Master. ECF No. 2020. The DPPs contend 

that SDIA should have re-filed its motion to compel, and also that 

the motion is not ripe given that the DPPs have issued supplemental 

responses to SDIA's discovery requests. ECF No. 2025.

The DPPs are right. SDIA's motion is not properly before the 

Court. If SDIA still contends that its motion is warranted, it 

should re-file and re-notice the motion pursuant to the Local 

Rules. However, the DPPs and SDIA -- along with all other parties

to this case -- are strongly encouraged to resolve their disputes 

on their own.

The Court makes no other findings as to the parties' discovery 

disputes at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2095 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 2