Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-460/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEARS’ & 

KMART’S DAMAGES REQUEST

Case No. 07-cv-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.)

[Stipulating parties listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Master File No. 3:07-CV-05944-JST

MDL No. 1917

This Document Relates To:

Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp. v. 

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv05514

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION REGARDING SEARS’ &

KMART’S DAMAGES REQUEST

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4644 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEARS’ & 

KMART’S DAMAGES REQUEST

Case No. 07-cv-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.)

WHEREAS Exhibit 20b of the Second Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Alan Frankel, 

prepared for Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Kmart Corporation (“Plaintiffs”), dated 

September 25, 2014 (“the Second Supplemental Report”), attributes portions of Plaintiffs’ 

damages request to alleged defendant groups, rather than to specific vendors;

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-12, PLAINTIFFS AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC. 

(“LGE”), BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY 

STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Plaintiffs will provide to LGE a breakdown of their damages set forth in Exhibit 20b of 

the Second Supplemental Report specifying, within each alleged defendant group from whom 

Plaintiffs purchased finished products (e.g., “Daewoo,” “Hitachi,” “LGE”), from which vendor(s) 

Plaintiffs purchased such products, and the damages attributable to Plaintiffs’ purchases from each 

such vendor, provided that detailing this information is feasible.

2. Plaintiffs will this provide this information by the earlier of either: (1) 90 days prior to 

the first day of trial in this action; (2) if the Court grants LGE’s motion for a bench trial on 

ownership/control issues that commences before the jury trial in this action, then 30 days prior to 

the deadline for LGE to serve its exhibit list for that bench trial; or (3) if the Court decides to 

resolve any ownership/control issues via briefing rather than through a bench trial, then 30 days 

prior to the deadline for LGE to file its first such brief.

3. Once Plaintiffs provide this information, and after the Court rules on all pending 

ownership/control motions for summary judgment, the parties will meet and confer in good faith 

regarding whether to stipulate to particular ownership/control relationships. 

4. Nothing in this stipulation prevents LGE from challenging Plaintiffs’ standing to seek 

damages where Plaintiffs are unable to identify the specific vendor from which they purchased 

particular finished products. 

5. LGE will not seek any additional discovery from Plaintiffs relating to the breakdown of 

their damages by vendor.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4644 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEARS’ & 

KMART’S DAMAGES REQUEST

Case No. 07-cv-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.)

6. This stipulation shall not be introduced into evidence during the jury trial or read to the 

jury during trial, and it shall not be relied on to support an entitlement to any relief not expressly 

contemplated by the terms of this stipulation.

Dated: May 6, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

/s/ Brad D. Brian

Brad Brian (State Bar No. 079001)

brad.brian@mto.com

Gregory J. Weingart (State Bar No. 157997)

gregory.weingart@mto.com

Susan E. Nash (State Bar No. 101837)

susan.nash@mto.com

E. Martin Estrada (State Bar No. 223802)

martin.estrada@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1560

Telephone: (213) 683-9100

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.

/s/ William J. Blechman

Richard Alan Arnold

kmurray@knpa.com

William J. Blechman

wblechman@knpa.com

Kevin J. Murray

rarnold@knpa.com

KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.

201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1100

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 373-1000

Facsimile: (305) 372-1861

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. and 

Kmart Corp.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that the concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4644 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEARS’ & 

KMART’S DAMAGES REQUEST

Case No. 07-cv-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.)

It is so stipulated and agreed to by the parties.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:___________________ ___________________________________ Hon. Jon S. Tigar

United States District Judge 

May 10, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4644 Filed 05/10/16 Page 4 of 4