From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 4, 2014
MDL Docket 3:10-md-02143 RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014)

Opinion

          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, BELINDA S. LEE, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendants Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation, and Toshiba Corporation.

          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, IAN SIMMONS, Washington, DC, Counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, JOHN F. COVE, JR., Oakland, CA, Counsel for Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., Sony Optiarc Inc., and Sony Optiarc America Inc.

          DLA PIPER LLP, DEANA L. CAIRO, Washington, DC, Counsel for Defendants TEAC Corporation and TEAC America Inc.

          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, JEFFREY L. KESSLER New York, NY, Counsel for Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America.

          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, ROBERT B. PRINGLE San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendant NEC Corporation.

          ROPES & GRAY LLP, Mark S. POPOFSKY, Washington, DC, Counsel for Defendants Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.

          BAKER BOTTS LLP, EVAN WERBEL, Washington, DC, Counsel for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V., Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp., and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

          DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP, LISA M. KAAS, Washington, DC, Counsel for Defendants BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp.

          VINSON & ELKINS LLP, CRAIG P. SEEBALD, Washington, DC, Counsel for Defendant Hitachi, Ltd.

          JONES DAY, ERIC P. ENSON, Los Angeles, CA, Counsel for Defendants Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Pioneer North America, Inc., Pioneer Corporation, and Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co., LTD.

          EIMER STAHL LLP, NATHAN P. EIMER Chicago, IL, Counsel for Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.

          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, KEITH A. WALTER, JR. Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Defendants Quanta Storage, Inc. and Quanta Storage America, Inc.

          OFFICE OF the ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA NICHOLAS J. WEILHAMMER, Tallahassee, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiff State of Florida


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING THE WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S MOTION TO STRIKE

          RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

         WHEREAS, on January 24, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs' ("Florida") Amended Complaint for Damages, Civil Penalties, [and] Injunctive Relief ("Motion to Dismiss") (Dkt. 24);

         WHEREAS, on April 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss State of Florida's Complaint (Dkt. 28);

         WHEREAS, on May 19, 2014, Florida filed a Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Civil Penalties, and Injunctive Relief ("Second Amended Complaint") (Dkt. 31);

         WHEREAS, the undersigned Defendants filed separate Answers to Florida's Second Amended Complaint on or about June 18, 2014 and June 25, 2014, which individually asserted various Affirmative Defenses by each Defendant;

         WHEREAS, on July 9, 2014, Florida filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses to the State of Florida's Second Amended Complaint ("Motion to Strike") (Dkt. 60), which seeks dismissal of the following four Affirmative Defenses, to the extent asserted by a particular Defendant: (i) Lack of Standing Based on Mack v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 673 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (" Mack "); (ii) lack of personal jurisdiction; (iii) improper venue; and (iv) incorporation of other Defendants' defenses ( see Dkt. 60, Appendix A-D);

         WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and reached an agreement whereby Defendants agree to withdraw the Affirmative Defenses identified in Appendix A-D of Florida's Motion to Strike from their individual Answers, and Florida agrees to withdraw its Motion to Strike; and

         WHEREAS, the parties agree that the withdrawal of improper venue as an Affirmative Defense from any Defendant's Answer shall not preclude any party, including either Florida or any Defendant, from later moving the Court to change or transfer the venue of this action.

         NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and AGREED, subject to Court approval, that Florida's Motion to Strike (Dkt. 60) shall be deemed withdrawn. In addition, the following four Affirmative Defenses shall be deemed withdrawn, to the extent asserted by any Defendant in its Answer to Florida's Second Amended Complaint: (i) lack of standing based on Mack; (ii) lack of personal jurisdiction; (iii) improper venue; and (iv) incorporation of other Defendants' defenses. The withdrawal of improper venue as an Affirmative Defense from any Defendant's Answer shall not preclude any party from subsequently moving this Court to change or transfer the venue of this action.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 4, 2014
MDL Docket 3:10-md-02143 RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014)
Case details for

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

Case Details

Full title:IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. v. HITACHI-LG DATA…

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

Date published: Aug 4, 2014

Citations

MDL Docket 3:10-md-02143 RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014)