Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-338/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 DENYING MOTION TO 

MODIFY DIRECT PURCHASER 

PLAINTIFF CLASS 

CERTIFICATION SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

This Order Relates To: 

Case No. 14-cv-02058 SC 

CRAGO, d/b/a Dash Comp., Inc. et 

al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP., et 

al., 

 

 Defendants. 

Now before the Court is Defendant Mitsubishi Electric's 

("Mitsubishi") motion to modify the schedule for briefing on the 

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") motion for class 

certification. ECF No. 3501 ("Mot."). DPPs oppose, ECF No. 3525 

("Opp'n"), and Mitsubishi filed a reply. ECF No. 3618 ("Reply"). 

The Court finds the motion is appropriate for disposition without 

oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is 

DENIED. 

In December, DPPs and Mitsubishi entered into a stipulation 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3794 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

regarding scheduling for briefing on DPPs' motion for class 

certification. ECF No. 3184 ("Stip."). This stipulation required 

DPPs to make their class certification expert available for 

deposition on or before January 31, 2015, oppositions and expert 

reports to be served on or before February 27, 2015, a reply to be 

filed on or before April 17, 2015, and a deposition of any 

opposition experts prior to or on March 27, 2014 (although this is 

a typo and the parties clearly intended March 27, 2015). Id. 

Citing the settlement between Thomson and DPPs, ongoing discovery 

between Mitsubishi and the DPPs, and the trial date for these 

actions, which was set for March 9, 2015, Mitsubishi sought a 

stipulation from DPPs to make additional changes to the schedule 

for the class certification motion. Mot. at ¶¶ 7-10. DPPs 

refused, and Mitsubishi filed this motion arguing that good cause 

exists for an approximately two-month extension of the deadlines. 

After Mitsubishi filed its opening brief, the Court vacated 

the March 9, 2015 trial date. ECF No. 3515. In DPPs' view, the 

elimination of the pressures of trial preparation, coupled with the 

lack of evidence of diligence or good cause on the part of 

Mitsubishi either obviates the need to change the schedule or 

precludes granting the motion. Before the Court could address this 

motion, Mitsubishi filed its opposition to DPPs' class 

certification motion according to the existing schedule. ECF No. 

3709. While the parties had some scheduling disagreements, the 

Court also assumes that the deposition of DPPs' class certification 

expert, Jeffrey Leitzinger, which was supposed to take place on or 

before January 31, 2015, has already taken place. Nevertheless, 

Mitsubishi apparently continues to believe an extension is 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3794 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

necessary. 

Scheduling orders "may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Pretrial 

scheduling orders may be modified if the dates scheduled "cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus of the good cause inquiry is "on 

the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party 

was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id. As the undersigned 

has previously observed, "centering the good cause analysis on the 

moving party's diligence prevents parties from profiting from 

carelessness, unreasonability, or gamesmanship, while also not 

punishing parties for circumstances outside their control." In re 

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-5944-SC, 2014 WL 

4954634, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (citing Orozco v. Midland 

Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02585-KJM-CKD, 2013 WL 3941318, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)). 

The Court finds that the elimination of the pressure of 

preparing for the now-vacated March 9 trial date ensures that the 

dates in the existing schedule can now "reasonably be met" with 

diligence on the part of Mitsubishi. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Confirming that conclusion, Mitsubishi was able to file its 

opposition to DPPs' class certification motion on time after the 

Court vacated the trial date. 

Moreover, the fact that Mitsubishi already filed its 

opposition brief means that the only remaining deadlines it asks to 

alter either apply exclusively to the DPPs (the April 17, 2015 

reply deadline) or were not the focus of Mitsubishi's motion (the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3794 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

March 27, 2015 deadline for deposing any Mitsubishi class 

certification expert). Yet based on the Court's review of 

Mitsubishi's class certification opposition and declarations, 

Mitsubishi appears to rely merely on its economic expert, Dov 

Rothman, who does not address class certification or DPPs' expert 

at all. See generally ECF No. 3708-10 ("Rothman Report"). As a 

result, it is unclear if Mitsubishi would even have to produce Mr. 

Rothman for deposition under the parties' stipulated schedule. 

That means that even if the Court sets aside the parties' dispute 

over Mitsubishi's diligence, granting the motion would only result 

in the extension of (1) a deadline for DPPs (who do not seek an 

extension of time), and (2) a deadline that does not apply to 

Mitsubishi. This renders the motion either simply unnecessary or 

moot. 

For these reasons, Mitsubishi's motion to modify the class 

certification scheduling order is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: March 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3794 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 4