From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 23, 2011
Master File No. M 07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)

Opinion

Master File No. M 07-1827 SI Case No. 09-cv-5840 SI MDL No. 1827

11-23-2011

IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To: Case No. 09-cv-5840 SI MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., et al, Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057) Shawn Joe Lichaa (SBN 250902) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Attorneys for Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation Nathanial J. Wood (CA Bar No. 223547) Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806) Joshua C. Stokes (CA Bar No. 220214) CROWELL & MORING LLP Jeffrey H. Howard ( pro hac vice ) Jerome A. Murphy ( pro hac vice ) CROWELL & MORING LLP Counsel for Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc.


Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172)

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)

Shawn Joe Lichaa (SBN 250902)

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTOROLA'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Whereas Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola") filed its Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") in the above-captioned matter on July 22, 2011, naming Philips Electronics North America Corporation ("PENAC") as a defendant;

Whereas PENAC moved to dismiss the claims in the TAC on September 12, 2011, and the Court denied that motion on November 16, 2011;

Whereas, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), PENAC's deadline to answer the TAC is currently on or around November 30, 2011;

Whereas PENAC requires additional time to prepare its answer to the TAC;

Whereas Motorola's First Set of Interrogatories to PENAC included Interrogatory No. 7, which sought information related to the factual bases for PENAC's affirmative defenses to the TAC;

Whereas PENAC previously responded to Interrogatory No. 7 indicating that PENAC had not yet filed an answer and therefore had not yet asserted affirmative defenses;

Whereas Motorola requests that PENAC update its response to Interrogatory No. 7 after PENAC answers the TAC;

Whereas Motorola wishes to preserve the option of moving to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 7;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Motorola and PENAC, through their respective undersigned counsel, as follows:

1. The deadline for PENAC to answer the TAC will be December 20, 2011;
2. The deadline for PENAC to respond to Interrogatory No. 7 will be January 13, 2012, without prejudice to PENAC's right to supplement, amend, or correct its response to Interrogatory No. 7 as PENAC becomes aware of additional information; and
3. The deadline for Motorola to move to compel a response with respect to Interrogatory No. 7 will be February 13, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)

Shawn Joe Lichaa (SBN 250902)

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172)

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation

Nathanial J. Wood (CA Bar No. 223547)

Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806)

Joshua C. Stokes (CA Bar No. 220214)

CROWELL & MORING LLP

Jeffrey H. Howard (pro hac vice)

Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)

CROWELL & MORING LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc.

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Honorable Susan Illston

United Stated District Judge


Summaries of

Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 23, 2011
Master File No. M 07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)
Case details for

Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

Case Details

Full title:IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2011

Citations

Master File No. M 07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)