Opinion
Master Docket No. M:07-cv-1827-SI Case No. 3:09-cv-05840-SI
11-22-2011
In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to: 3:09-cv-5840-SI MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Plaintiffs, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Tyler Mark Cunningham (SBN 243694) Michael W. Scarborough (SBN 203524) SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON Counsel for Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. 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
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
GARY L. HALLING, Cal. Bar No. 66087
JAMES L. McGINNIS, Cal. Bar No. 95788
MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, Cal. Bar No. 203524
MONA SOLOUKI, Cal. Bar No. 215145
TYLER M. CUNNINGHAM. Cal. Bar No. 243694
Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD. and
SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Whereas, plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola") filed a third amended complaint ("TAC") in the above-captioned case on July 22, 2011, naming Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc. (together, "SDI") as defendants;
Whereas, SDI filed a motion to dismiss claims in the TAC, which the Court denied on November 14, 2011;
Whereas, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), the date for SDI to answer the TAC is currently on or about November 30, 2011;
Whereas, counsel for SDI requires additional time to review the TAC and prepare its answer thereto;
Whereas Motorola's First Set of Interrogatories to SDI includes Interrogatory No. 9, which references SDI's affirmative defenses to the TAC;
Whereas counsel for SDI requires additional time to review and respond to Interrogatory No. 9 following the preparation, service and filing of its answer to the TAC;
Whereas counsel for Motorola wishes to preserve the option of moving to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 9;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Motorola on the one hand, and SDI on the other hand, as follows:
1. The deadline for SDI to answer the TAC will be December 19, 2011.Interrogatory No. 9 will be February 6, 2012.
2. The deadline for SDI to respond to Interrogatory No. 9 will be January 9, 2012.
3. The deadline for Motorola to move to compel a response with respect to
Tyler Mark Cunningham (SBN 243694)
Michael W. Scarborough (SBN 203524)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
Counsel for Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc.
and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.
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, § X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Susan Illston, United States District Judge