Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Hearing scheduled for objection to appointment of special master in CRT price fixing litigation, (Sep 1, 2015)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

The federal district court in San Francisco, California issued an order setting a hearing for objections to the appointment of a special master to hear certain motions in the cathode ray tube (CRT) price fixing litigation. While it was inclined to overrule objections to the appointment of U.S. Magistrate Judge James Larson as a special master, the court ordered the hearing, to be held on September 11, to ensure that all interested parties had an adequate opportunity to be heard (In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, August 31, 2015, Conti, S.).

The court stated that it did not generally release preliminary rulings. However, to ensure that the parties could address its concerns, the court disclosed that was leaning toward a finding that the marital relationship of Judge Larson and federal Article III Judge Susan Illston was irrelevant. Judge Larson had a reputation of being an honest, reliable, and trustworthy individual and the court expressed confidence in his ability to be fair and impartial when considering judicial opinions authored by his spouse.

As precedent in support of the appointment, the court looked to the Ninth Circuit case, Perry v. Schwartzenegger, 630 F.3d 909 (2011), where a judge did not recuse himself in spite of public statements and actions by his wife, who was also a judge, that were directly on point. The judge reasoned that recusal was not appropriate because a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts could not reasonably believe that, by virtue of his marriage, he would approach and decide the case differently. The Perry decision stood for the proposition that a spouse’s personal or professional opinions did not always yield bias to a federal judge such that recusal was required. The concerned parties in the present case offered merely conclusions and opinions, which were insufficient to show bias, in the court’s view.

The court concluded that it was confident that Judge Larson would use his own resources when making decision. However, it would consider the need for an order that he not be permitted to discuss the substance of the case with his spouse until after the case was done.

The case number is C-07-5944-SC.

Attorneys: Bruce Lee Simon (Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP) for Crago, Inc. Cadio R. Zirpoli (Saveri & Saveri, Inc.) for Hawel A. Hawel and Orion Home Systems, LLC. Bryan L. Clobes (Cafferty Clobes Meriwether& Sprengel LLP) for Princeton Display Technologies, Inc. Gilmur Roderick Murray (Murray & Howard, LLP) for Southern Office Supply, Inc. Gregory K. Arenson (Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP) for Meijer, Inc. Joel Steven Sanders (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) for Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. Eliot A. Adelson (Kirkland& Ellis LLP) for Hitachi, Ltd., and Hitachi America, Ltd. Joseph R. Tiffany, II (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) for IRICO Group Corp. David L. Yohai (Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP), and Eva W. Cole (Winston & Strawn LLP) for Panasonic Corporation of North America.

Companies: Crago, Inc.; Orion Home Systems, LLC; Princeton Display Technologies, Inc.; Southern Office Supply, Inc.; Meijer, Inc.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi America, Ltd.; IRICO Group Corp.; Panasonic Corporation of North America

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews