From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 26, 2011
Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011)

Opinion

Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI MDL No. 1827

10-26-2011

IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION

WHITE & CASE LLP Christopher M. Curran Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice) John H. Chung (pro hac vice) Martin M. Toto (pro hac vice) Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Toshiba Corp., Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP Judith A. Zahid Francis O. Scarpulla (41059) Craig C. Corbitt (83251) Judith A. Zahid (215418) Patrick B. Clayton (240191) Qianwei Fu (242669) Heather T. Rankie (268002) ALIOTO LAW FIRM Joseph M. Alioto Co-Lead Class Counsel for Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Richard M. Heimann Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 63607) PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP Bruce L. Simon (State Bar No. 96241) Co-Lead Class Counsel for Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs


Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice)

John H. Chung (pro hac vice)

Martin M. Toto (pro hac vice)

Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice)

WHITE & CASE LLP

Attorneys for Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba

America Information Systems, Inc.

This Document Relates to:

All Direct- and Indirect-Purchaser Class Actions

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

AMENDED ORDER REGARDING

PAGE LIMITS FOR TOSHIBA

ENTITIES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, on September 9, 2011, the Toshiba Entities filed a motion for summary judgment (redacted version at Dkt. No. 3581), which is set for hearing on November 4, 2011;

WHEREAS, on September 28, 2011, the Parties entered into a stipulation altering the page limits ordinarily provided by the Local Rules to file response and reply papers in connection with the motion (Dkt. No. 3732);

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2011, the Court approved the Parties' stipulation altering the page limits ordinarily provided by the Local Rules to file response and reply papers in connection with the motion (Dkt. No. 3757);

WHEREAS, the September 29, 2011 Order provided that (1) Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion shall not exceed 40 pages; (2) Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion shall not exceed 40 pages; and (3) the Toshiba Entities shall be entitled to file a single reply of at least 35 pages, and the Toshiba Entities shall have the right to seek additional pages after reviewing the oppositions;

WHEREAS, the Toshiba Entities have requested and the Parties have agreed to alter the page limitation for the Toshiba Entities' reply;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by undersigned counsel on behalf of the Parties identified below, that:

(1) The Toshiba Entities shall be entitled to file a single reply not to exceed 45 pages.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

WHITE & CASE LLP

Christopher M. Curran

Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice)

John H. Chung (pro hac vice)

Martin M. Toto (pro hac vice)

Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Toshiba Corp., Toshiba Mobile Display Co.,

Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP

Judith A. Zahid

Francis O. Scarpulla (41059)

Craig C. Corbitt (83251)

Judith A. Zahid (215418)

Patrick B. Clayton (240191)

Qianwei Fu (242669)

Heather T. Rankie (268002)

ALIOTO LAW FIRM

Joseph M. Alioto

Co-Lead Class Counsel for Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &

BERNSTEIN, LLP

Richard M. Heimann

Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 63607)

PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW &

PENNY, LLP

Bruce L. Simon (State Bar No. 96241)

Co-Lead Class Counsel for Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs Attestation: The filer of this document attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.

By: John H. Chung

[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation set forth above, IT IS SO ORDERED.

By: Hon. Susan Illston

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 26, 2011
Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011)
Case details for

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Oct 26, 2011

Citations

Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011)