Eliasoph v. LG Philips LCD Co., LTD. et al

Filing 124

ORDER DENYING THE TOSHIBA ENTITIES' MOTION TO MODIFY MAY 27, 2008 ORDER AND STAY DISCOVERY (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / On November 19, 2008, the Court heard argument on the Toshiba entities' motion for a stay of discovery. These defendants move to stay all discovery against each of the Toshiba entities until such time as there is an operative complaint sustained against that entity. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may issue an order "that the disclosure or discovery not be had" or "that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 26(c) as conferring "broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). After consideration of the parties' papers, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES defendants' motion. (Docket No. 694). Plaintiffs' deadline to file their amended complaints is December 5, 2008, just over two weeks hence. The Special Master considered and rejected Toshiba's related request for a protective order in the context of creating a revised case management plan which enforces the terms of the limited stay. All other defendants have agreed to the current discovery plan, IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION / This Order Relates to: ALL CASES No. M 07-1827 SI MDL. No. 1827 ORDER DENYING THE TOSHIBA ENTITIES' MOTION TO MODIFY MAY 27, 2008 ORDER AND STAY DISCOVERY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

which is in effect. This Court agrees that no further or special stay for Toshiba is appropriate at this time. The Court also DENIES the Toshiba entities' oral request for certification of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2008

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2