Tech Data Corporation et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00944

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES and APPOINTMENT OF A DISCOVERY MASTER. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on November 1, 2013. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) [Transferred from cand on 4/20/2017.]

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 278 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)) MDL No. 1917 8 ANTITRUST LITIGATION)) Case No. C-07-5944-SC 9)) ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 10 This Order Relates To:) United States District Court For the Northern District of California) 11 ALL CASES)) 12)) 13)) 14)) 15)) 16) 17 18 The Court has read and considered the parties' letters 19 regarding the need for a discovery master in this case. See ECF 20 Nos. 1954, 1967, 1968, 2013. The Court proposes that the Honorable 21 Vaughn Walker, United States District Judge (Retired), serve in 22 that capacity. The parties shall file letters of support or 23 opposition to this decision within seven (7) days of this Order's 24 signature date. Any party objecting to this appointment shall 25 propose an alternative discovery magistrate. To minimize 26 duplicative filings and to encourage efficient resolution of the 27 parties' disputes, the parties are encouraged to meet and confer on 28 this matter, and to file joint letters. After these letters are PageID 279 1 submitted, the Court will consider the parties' positions and issue 2 an order regarding discovery in this case. 3 As to the direct purchaser plaintiffs' ("DPPs") dispute with 4 Samsung SDI America, Inc. ("SDIA") over SDIA's pending motion to 5 compel, ECF No. 1908, the Court notes that it informed the parties 6 at its September 13, 2013 hearing that discovery motions were to be 7 filed before the Court. SDIA argues that its motion is properly 8 before the Court despite having been filed as a letter brief before 9 the now-discharged Special Master. ECF No. 2020. The DPPs contend 10 that SDIA should have re-filed its motion to compel, and also that For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 the motion is not ripe given that the DPPs have issued supplemental 12 responses to SDIA's discovery requests. ECF No. 2025. 13 The DPPs are right. SDIA's motion is not properly before the 14 Court. If SDIA still contends that its motion is warranted, it 15 should re-file and re-notice the motion pursuant to the Local 16 Rules. However, the DPPs and SDIA -- along with all other parties 17 to this case -- are strongly encouraged to resolve their disputes 18 on their own. 19 The Court makes no other findings as to the parties' discovery 20 disputes at this time. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: November 1, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2