Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-317/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 

Northern District of Washington 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C-07-5944 SC 

MDL No. 1917 

ORDER REQUESTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

 

This Document Relates To: 

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Hitachi 

Ltd., No. C-13-1173-SC 

Now before the Court is the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' 

("DPPs") motion for final approval of class action settlements 

("Proposed Settlements") with the Hitachi and SDI Defendants,1

(collectively, "Settling Defendants"). ECF No. 2728 ("Mot."). The 

Court previously granted preliminary approval to the Proposed 

Settlements. ECF Nos. 2311 ("Hitachi Preliminary Approval Order"); 

 

1

 The SDI Defendants include Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung 

Display Devices Co., Ltd.), Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI 

Brasil, Ltd., Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung Shenzhen SDI 

Co., Ltd., SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., and SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V. 

(collectively "SDI"). The DPP's proposed settlement with Hitachi 

includes Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display 

Inc.), Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., and Hitachi 

Electronic Devices (USA) Inc. (collectively, "Hitachi"). 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3134 Filed 11/20/14 Page 1 of 3
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 

2534 ("Samsung SDI Preliminary Approval Order"). Additionally, 

DPPs ask the Court to grant approval to a proposed claim form and 

to direct the settlement administrator to provide notice to the 

class. ECF No. 2728-7 ("Proposed Claim Form"). 

The Court held a fairness hearing at which DPPs, Hitachi, and 

Sharp were heard. ECF No. 2757 ("Fairness Hr'g"). The Court also 

received a belated objection to the settlement by Sharp, ECF No. 

2751-2 ("Sharp Obj."), which is the subject of a motion seeking a 

retroactive enlargement of the time to object to the settlement. 

ECF No. 2751 ("Sharp Obj. Mot."). That motion is opposed. ECF 

Nos. 2753 ("DPP Opp'n"); 2754 ("SDI Opp'n); 2755 ("Hitachi Opp'n"). 

 Now Sharp has filed an administrative motion asking "the Court 

to set a conference to discuss case management issues" relating to 

the instant motions. ECF No. 3127 ("Case Mgmt. Mot."). In Sharp's 

motion, it argues that, among other things, the Court could order a 

new notice be sent to class members providing a new opportunity to 

opt out. Id. at 4. Sharp has offered to pay the reasonable costs 

of such notice as well. Id. 

 The motion is not yet ripe, and the Court anticipates that the 

interested parties may yet file responsive papers in the coming 

days. Nonetheless, the Court writes now to solicit the parties' 

views on the following specific issues related to Sharp's proposed 

solutions: 

 The Court is familiar with the requirement that on final 

approval a class settlement must stand or fall in its 

entirety. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 

1026 (9th Cir. 1998). May the Court nonetheless order a 

second round of notice and opportunity to opt-out in the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3134 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 3
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 

exercise of its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(d) without addressing the merits of DPPs' and 

the Settling Defendants' final approval motion? 

 Similarly, the Court is aware that the costs of class 

notice must generally be borne by the proponent of class 

certification. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 

156, 171 (1974). May the Court nonetheless order Sharp 

bear the costs of a second class action notice? 

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows: 

 Responses to Sharp's administrative motion addressing these 

questions and any other relevant issues shall be no more 

than five (5) pages and be filed within seven (7) days of 

the signature date of this order. 

 Sharp may file a responsive brief, if necessary, of no more 

than five (5) pages within fourteen (14) days of the 

signature date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 20, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3134 Filed 11/20/14 Page 3 of 3