Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-267/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 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

This Order Relates To: 

Case No. 3:14-cv-02510 

VIEWSONIC CORP. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

 CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., 

et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 Plaintiff Viewsonic Corporation ("Viewsonic") filed this 

action on May 30, 2014. No. 14-cv-05210, ECF No. 1. Previously, 

Viewsonic, along with three other plaintiffs, sought to retract its 

previous opt-out from five settlement classes reached between the 

two plaintiff classes and several defendants. ECF No. 2517, at 3. 

On April 1, 2014, the Court denied that motion and encouraged the 

movants to pursue their own settlements. Id. at 7. Following the 

filing of this action, the parties filed letter briefs with the 

Court staking out various positions as to how, if at all, the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2711 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 5
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 

current MDL schedule, ECF No. 2459, should be varied in light of 

the comparatively late date on which this action was filed. See 

ECF Nos. 2643, 2645, 2657. Following this Court's order to meet 

and confer regarding these scheduling issues, ECF No. 2671, the 

parties filed a joint statement outlining their positions. ECF No. 

2686 ("Joint Statement"). 

 In the joint statement, the parties stake out two positions. 

The first, held by Viewsonic and a group of defendants,1

("Collaborating Defendants") would maintain the existing March 9, 

2015 trial date and pretrial schedule while altering various 

discovery, expert, and dispositive motion deadlines. Joint 

Statement at 1. The second, articulated by a different group of 

defendants,2 ("Non-Collaborating Defendants") does not offer an 

alternative approach. Instead, the Non-Collaborating Defendants 

simply argue that (1) the schedule proposed by Viewsonic and the 

Collaborating Defendants provides inadequate time for pretrial 

matters, particularly discovery, (2) Viewsonic's business model and 

 

1

 These defendants are: LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics USA, 

Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America 

Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, 

Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric Visual 

Solutions America, Inc.; and Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, 

Inc.; Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA); and Technicolor USA, Inc. 

(f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.). Joint Statement at 1 

n.1. 

2

 The Defendants taking this position are: Chunghwa Picture Tubes, 

Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia); Panasonic Corporation; 

Panasonic Corporation of North America; MT Picture Display Co., 

Ltd.; Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd.; Koninklijke Philips 

Electronics N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; 

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan) Ltd.; Philips Da Amazonia 

Industria Electronica Ltda.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI 

America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil 

Ltda.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., 

Ltd.; and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Joint Statement at 5 

n.4. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2711 Filed 07/28/14 Page 2 of 5
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 

expert reports raise issues distinct from those in the other MDL 

cases, and (3) the prejudice they will suffer as a result of 

applying the MDL schedule to this action is the result of 

Viewsonic's prior litigation strategy and delay in filing the 

complaint in this action. Id. at 5-7. To remedy these issues, the 

Non-Collaborating Defendants propose the Court "meet and confer 

with all defendants regarding a separate schedule that is fair to 

all parties." Id. at 7. 

 With respect to the parties' positions, the Court agrees with 

Viewsonic and the Collaborating Defendants. While the Court is 

sympathetic to the claims of prejudice by the Non-Collaborating 

Defendants, the legal and factual allegations as well as the likely 

expert discovery issues here are largely identical to those in the 

other actions. The Court remains committed to a swift but fair 

resolution of these actions and continues to believe maintaining 

the March 9, 2015 trial date is important to resolving these cases. 

 Accordingly the Court hereby ORDERS this action shall be 

governed by the following schedule: 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2711 Filed 07/28/14 Page 3 of 5
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 

July 25, 2014 Answer Viewsonic Complaint 

September 5, 2014 Defendants serve Opposition 

Expert Reports/Opening Reports 

October 6, 2014 

Viewsonic serves Rebuttal 

Reports/Opposition Reports 

November 7, 2014 Close of fact and expert 

discovery 

November 14, 2014 Last day to file dispositive 

motions 

November 21, 2014 Defendants' Optional surrebuttal 

December 5, 2014 

Pretrial Daubert 

motions 

Plaintiff's exchange of trial 

exhibits, deposition excerpts, 

and witness lists 

December 23, 2014 Oppositions to dispositive 

motions 

January 9, 2015 First simultaneous exchange of 

jury instructions and special 

verdict forms 

January 16, 2015 Oppositions to pretrial Daubert 

motions 

January 23, 2015 

Replies in support of 

dispositive motions 

Motions in limine and other nondispositive motions 

January 26, 2015 Second simultaneous exchange of 

jury instructions and special 

verdict forms 

January 29, 2015 

Defendants' exchange of trial 

exhibits, deposition excerpts, 

and witness lists 

January 30, 2015 

Meet and confer regarding pretrial order 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2711 Filed 07/28/14 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: July 28, 2014 

February 6, 2015 Last day to exchange proposed 

exhibits and witness lists 

Last day for filing pre-trial 

order, agreed set of jury 

instructions, and verdict forms 

February 9, 2015 Replies in support of pre-trial 

Daubert motions 

February 13, 2015 Oppositions to motions in limine 

and other non-dispositive 

motions 

February 20, 2015 Last day for filing replies in 

support of motions in limine 

February 27, 2015 Hearings on motions in limine 

and other non-dispositive pretrial motions 

Final pre-trial conference 

March 9, 2015 Trial(s) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2711 Filed 07/28/14 Page 5 of 5