Opinion
No. 3:10 MD-02143 RS
10-07-2011
In re: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation
DEFENDANTS JEFFREY L. KESSLER (admitted pro hac vice ) A. PAUL VICTOR (admitted pro hac vice ) DAVID L. GREENSPAN (admitted pro hac vice ) JAMES F. LERNER (admitted pro hac vice) DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation of North America and Panasonic Corporation INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS Jeff D. Friedman Shana E. Scarlett Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro, LLP Steve W. Berman ( Pro Hac Vice ) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
JEFFREY L. KESSLER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
A. PAUL VICTOR (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
DAVID L. GREENSPAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JAMES F. LERNER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America
This Document Relates to: INDIRECT PURCHASER CASES
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2(A)
WHEREAS, Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America ("Panasonic Defendants") were named in the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("IP-SAC") (Dkt. No. 403) filed on September 23, 2011;
WHEREAS, the Panasonic Defendants had not previously been named as Defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint ("IP-FAC") (Dkt. No. 239), filed October 1, 2010, and thus were not served with and did not respond to the IP-FAC;
WHEREAS, the Panasonic Defendants now request a brief, two week extension of time to analyze the IP-SAC and to prepare a response to it;
WHEREAS, Panasonic Corporation has agreed to accept service of, and has been served with, the IP-SAC;
WHEREAS, the stipulated extension of time relieves the Indirect Plaintiffs of the burden of needing to serve Panasonic Corporation in Japan or moving the Court on other grounds, which would have caused additional delay;
WHEREAS, the extension only applies to the briefing schedule for any individual motions filed by the Panasonic Defendants in response to the IP-SAC, and will not affect the timing for any joint motions to be filed in response to the IP-SAC;
WHEREAS, a previous time modification occurred in this case on August 26, 2011, when the Court endorsed a stipulation extending time for the briefing schedule (Dkt. No. 401);
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the Parties identified below, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), that the schedule to file a motion to dismiss and any responsive briefs shall be as follows:
(1) The deadline for the Panasonic Defendants to file any individual motion to dismiss the IP-SAC is no later November 3, 2011;
(2) The deadline for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs to file any opposition to the motion to dismiss the IP-SAC is no later than 21 days after the Panasonic Defendants file any motion to dismiss the IP-SAC; and
(3) The deadline for the Panasonic Defendants to file any reply in support of any motion to dismiss the IP-SAC is no later than 13 days after the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs file any opposition to the motion to dismiss the IP-SAC.
It is also stipulated that any individual motion to dismiss the IP-SAC filed by either Panasonic Defendant, and any Opposition and Reply motions, will be subject to the same page limits set forth in the Stipulation and Order Regarding The Briefing for Any Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 415), filed on October 4, 2011.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DEFENDANTS
JEFFREY L. KESSLER (admitted pro hac vice)
A. PAUL VICTOR (admitted pro hac vice)
DAVID L. GREENSPAN (admitted pro hac vice)
JAMES F. LERNER (admitted pro hac vice)
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation of
North America and Panasonic Corporation
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Jeff D. Friedman
Shana E. Scarlett
Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro, LLP
Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge
Northern District of California