From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jun 7, 2013
12-cv-02649, 11-cv-01656, 11-cv-05381, 11-cv-05502, 11-cv-05513, 11-cv-05514, 11-cv-06275, 11-cv-06276, 11-cv-06396, 11-cv-06397, 12-cv-02648, 07-5944 SC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2013)

Opinion

          STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS OF OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTIONS TO ADOPT SPECIAL MASTER'S MAY 2, 2013 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS DIRECT ACTION COMPLAINTS

          SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

         WHEREAS, on August 17, 2012, the undersigned Defendants jointly moved to dismiss various claims asserted in the complaints filed by Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs") (Dkt. Nos. 1317 & 1318);

         WHEREAS, on September 28, 2012, DAPs filed papers opposing the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 1384);

         WHEREAS, on October 26, 2012, Defendants filed reply papers in support of the Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 1422);

         WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, Special Master Charles A. Legge heard argument on the Motions to Dismiss;

         WHEREAS, on February 22, 2013, DAPs filed a letter brief to Special Master Legge (Dkt. No. 1580);

         WHEREAS, on February 22, 2013, Defendants filed a letter brief to Special Master Legge (Dkt. No. 1581);

         WHEREAS, on May 2, 2013, Special Master Legge issued a Report and Recommendation Regarding the Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 1664) ("R&R");

         WHEREAS, the Motion to Dismiss and subsequent R&R cover a large number of legal issues that span both DAPs' federal claims and claims brought under the laws of 17 different states;

         WHEREAS, Defendants and DAPs (collectively "the Parties") intend to move to adopt or object to various portions of the R&R;

         WHEREAS, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Local Rules 7-2 and 7-4, would otherwise govern the page limits for the opening briefs, the responsive briefs, and the reply briefs in connection with the parties' motions to adopt, and objections to, the R&R.

          CHRISTOPHER M. CURRAN, (pro hac vice), LUCIUS B. LAU, (pro hac vice), DANA E. FOSTER, (pro hac vice), WHITE & CASE LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C., and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

          IAN SIMMONS, (pro hac vice), BENJAMIN G. BRADSHAW, (SBN 189925), KEVIN D. FEDER, (SBN 252347), O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

          JEFFREY L. KESSLER, (pro hac vice), A. PAUL VICTOR, (pro hac vice), ALDO A. BADINI, (SBN 257086), EVA W. COLE, (pro hac vice), MOLLY M. DONOVAN, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, New York, NY, STEVEN A. REISS, (pro hac vice), DAVID L. YOHAI, (pro hac vice), ADAM C. HEMLOCK, (pro hac vice), WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.), Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.

          KENT M. ROGER, (SBN 95987), MICHELLE PARK CHIU, (SBN 248421), San Francisco, California J. CLAYTON EVERETT, JR., (pro hac vice), SCOTT A. STEMPEL, (pro hac vice), MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display East, Inc.), Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

          HOJOON HWANG, (SBN 184950), San Francisco, California WILLIAM D. TEMKO, (SBN 098858), JONATHAN E. ALTMAN, (SBN 170607), BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH, (SBN 241891), MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.; LG, LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.

          GARY L. HALLING, (SBN 66087), JAMES L. McGINNIS, (SBN 95788), MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, (SBN 203524), SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN. BHD.; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. DE C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.

          JON V. SWENSON, (SBN 233054), Palo Alto, CA, JOHN M. TALADAY, (pro hac vice), JOSEPH OSTOYICH, (pro hac vice), BAKER BOTTS LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation.

          Rachel S. Brass, (SBN 219301), Joel S. Sanders, (SBN 107234), Austin V. Schwing, (SBN 211696), GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) as to the Target Am. Compl., P.C. Richard Compl., Tweeter Compl., CompuCom Compl., Interbond Compl., Costco Compl., Office Depo Compl. and Best Buy Compl. only.

          DAVID J. BURMAN, (pro hac vice), CORI G. MOORE, (pro hac vice), ERIC J. WEISS, (pro hac vice), NICHOLAS H. HESTERBERG, (pro hac vice), Seattle, WA, JOREN BASS, (Bar No. 208143), PERKINS COIE LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Costco Wholesale Corporation.

          PHILIP J. IOVIENO, ANNE M. NARDACCI, Albany, NY, WILLIAM A. ISAACSON, JENNIFER MILICI, Washington, D.C., STUART SINGER, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Liaison Counsel for Direct Action Plaintiffs and Attorneys for Plaintiffs Electrograph Systems, Inc., Electrograph Technologies, Corp., Office Depot, Inc., Compucom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America, P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC.

          ROMAN M. SILBERFELD, (SBN 62783), DAVID MARTINEZ, (SBN 193183), ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys For Plaintiffs Best Buy Co., Inc, Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., Bestbuy.com, L.L.C., and Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC.

          H. LEE GODFREY, KENNETH S. MARKS, JONATHAN J. ROSS, JOHNNY W. CARTER, DAVID M. PETERSON, Houston, Texas, PARKER C. FOLSE III, RACHEL S. BLACK, JORDAN CONNORS, SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P., Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust.

          JASON C. MURRAY, (CA Bar No. 169806), Los Angeles, CA JEROME A. MURPHY, (pro hac vice), ASTOR H.L. HEAVEN, (pro hac vice), CROWELL & MORING LLP, Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Target Corp. and RadioShack Corp.

          RICHARD ALAN ARNOLD, WILLIAM J. BLECHMAN, KEVIN J. MURRAY, KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A., Miami, FL, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp.

          Jessica L. Meyer, (SBN: 249064), James M. Lockhart, (pro hac vice), James P. McCarthy, (pro hac vice), Kelly G. Laudon, (pro hac vice), LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Attorneys for Plaintiffs John R. Stoebner, as Chapter 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer Electronics, LLC and Related Entities; and Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company, Inc. and Related Entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company, LLC and Related Entities.

          IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the DAPs and counsel for the Defendants in the above-captioned actions, as follows:


         1. The Parties' opening briefs shall be limited to no more than 30 pages of text;

         2. The Parties' responsive briefs shall be limited to no more than 45 pages of text;

         3. The Parties' reply brief shall be limited to no more than 20 pages of text.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jun 7, 2013
12-cv-02649, 11-cv-01656, 11-cv-05381, 11-cv-05502, 11-cv-05513, 11-cv-05514, 11-cv-06275, 11-cv-06276, 11-cv-06396, 11-cv-06397, 12-cv-02648, 07-5944 SC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2013)
Case details for

In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION v. Hitachi, Ltd., et…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Jun 7, 2013

Citations

12-cv-02649, 11-cv-01656, 11-cv-05381, 11-cv-05502, 11-cv-05513, 11-cv-05514, 11-cv-06275, 11-cv-06276, 11-cv-06396, 11-cv-06397, 12-cv-02648, 07-5944 SC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2013)

Citing Cases

In re Cathode Ray Tube (Crt) Antitrust Litigation

The Dell Amended Complaint asserts similar causes of action alleged by the following Direct Action Plaintiff…

In re Cathode Ray Tube (Crt) Antitrust Litigation

The Sharp Complaint asserts similar causes of action alleged by the following Direct Action Plaintiff…