Opinion
Civil No. C-06-6663 MEJ MDL 1819 (pending).
January 23, 2007
Joel S. Sanders, Adam Wilson, GIBSON, DUNN CRUTCHER LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ronald C. Redcay, ARNOLD PORTER LLP, Los Angeles, California, By: Adam Wilson, Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc..
Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg, Susan G. Kupfer, GLANCY BINKOW GOLDBERG LLP, San Francisco, CA, By: Susan G. Kupfer, Attorneys for Plaintiff David Takeda, et al..
Ted C. Lindquist, III, Gary L. Halling, James L. McGinnis, Mona Solouki, Tiffany Lee, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER HAMPTON LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc..
Peter Nemerovski, Kenneth O'Rourke, O'MELVENY MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc..
Steven Morrissett, FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT DUNNER LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Winbond Electronics Corporation America.
Paul Griffin, Robert Pringle, Jonathan Swartz, THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN STEINER LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant NEC Electronics America, Inc..
Maura L. Rees, Robert P. Feldman, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation.
Kevin C. McCann, Shinyung Oh, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY WALKER LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Alliance Semiconductor Corporation.
Alice W. Detwiler, Jeffrey M. Shohet, Mark H. Hamer, DLA PIPER US, LLP, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Defendant GSI Technology, Inc..
Daniel E. Alberti, MCDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Renesas Technology America, Inc..
Michael D. Lisi, KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY ROMAN LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Electronics USA, Inc..
Belinda Lee, Andrea Yamamoto, LATHAM WATKINS, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc..
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-12 and 16-2(e) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the following parties hereby stipulate to a stay of the proceeding for the following good cause:
1. At least 55 complaints have been filed to date in federal district courts by plaintiffs bringing class actions on behalf of either direct or indirect purchasers alleging price fixing by manufacturers of Static Random Access Memory ("SRAM") (collectively, the "SRAM cases").
2. There is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") (MDL case number 1819) a motion to transfer SRAM cases for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
3. On November 15, 2006, several defendants in the SRAM cases filed with the JPML a schedule identifying the above-captioned case as a potential tag-along action to pending MDL 1819.
4. On December 14, 2006, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session stating that the request to consolidate the SRAM cases will be heard by the JPML on January 25, 2007.
5. The parties agree that, at some point subsequent to that hearing, the JPML is likely to grant the transfer and coordination or consolidation request.
6. In light of the pending consolidation request before the JPML, Plaintiffs and Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. stipulated on December 5, 2006 (Document 7) to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned action to the earlier of the following two dates: (1) thirty days after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the SRAM cases; or (2) thirty days after Plaintiffs provide written notice that they do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided that such notice may be given only at or after the initial case management conference in the MDL transferee court in this case. Upon information and belief, all other defendants that have been served in this case joined that Stipulation, by letter or otherwise, and there have not been any other time modifications in this case except as noted in this Paragraph.
Crucial Technology, an unincorporated division of Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., is named as a defendant in the above-referenced complaint, while Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. is not. To the extent Crucial Technology is a proper party, it joins this Stipulation.
7. Anticipating a decision by the JPML, two courts in this district have already denied a series of administrative motions to consider whether certain SRAM cases should be related. These courts denied all of these motions without prejudice to renewal following the resolution of the proceedings before the JPML. See Dataplex, Inc. v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp., et. al, No. 06-6491 CW (12/14/06 Order of Judge Wilken); see also In re DRAM Litigation, No. M02-1486 PJH (11/15/06 Order of Judge Hamilton).
8. Also anticipating a decision by the JPML, four courts in this district have recently either stayed an SRAM proceeding or continued case management deadlines in six SRAM actions. See Dataplex, Inc. v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 06-6491 CW (12/27/06 Order of Judge Wilken to temporarily stay proceeding pending decision by JPML); Stargate Films, Inc. v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 06-7007 CW (12/27/06 Order of Judge Wilken to temporarily stay proceeding pending decision by JPML); Maites v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 6-6542 SBA (12/27/06 Order of Judge Armstrong to continue case management dates pending decision by JPML); Reclaim Center, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 06-6533 SI (12/22/06 Order of Judge Illston to stay proceeding pending decision by JPML); Madsen v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 06-6541 SI (12/22/06 Order of Judge Illston to continue case management deadlines pending decision by JPML); Ma v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 06-6511 EDL (12/20/06 Order of Judge Laporte to continue case management deadlines and conference pending decision by JPML).
9. Given the January 25, 2007 hearing date for pending MDL 1819, the dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed October 26, 2006 in the above-captioned case (Document 2), including deadlines imposed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, Local Rule 16, and ADR Local Rule 3.5, will come to pass before the JPML likely acts on the pending request.
10. The parties agree that a temporary stay of this proceeding pending the JPML's resolution of the pending transfer and coordination or consolidation request would promote judicial efficiency, allow consistency in pretrial rulings, and be most convenient to the parties, including the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action.
11. The parties agree that this joint stipulation does not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue.
12. Accordingly, the parties hereby STIPULATE to and respectfully request the Court to temporarily STAY the proceeding and VACATE the dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed October 26, 2006 (Document 2) pending the resolution of the transfer motion currently before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in MDL No. 1819. The affected dates include the deadline to meet and confer and file Joint ADR Certification (currently January 11, 2007); the deadline to complete Initial Disclosures, the Joint Case Management Statement, and the Rule 26(f) Report (currently January 25, 2007); and the Initial Case Management Conference (currently February 1, 2007).
13. In the alternative, the parties hereby STIPULATE to and respectfully request the Court to CONTINUE the dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed October 26, 2006 (Document 2). The affected dates are those set forth in Paragraph 12. The parties propose extending these dates 90 days to April 11, April 25, and May 2, 2007, respectively.