Eliasoph v. LG Philips LCD Co., LTD. et al
ORDER DENYING THE TOSHIBA ENTITIES' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2008)
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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2008 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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 STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The Toshiba entities have filed a motion to stay discovery pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the Toshiba entities' petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and DENIES the motion. (Docket No. 735). The Court finds that Toshiba has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because mandamus is generally not available to challenge discretionary decisions such as the Court's November 19, 2008 order denying Toshiba's motion for a protective order. See Kmart Corp. v. Aronds, 123 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1997). The Toshiba entities have also not demonstrated that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Toshiba asserts that discovery will be extremely burdensome. However, as plaintiffs note, the burden associated with certain categories of documents such as those already produced by Toshiba to the Department of Justice should be minimal. All other defendants have agreed to the discovery schedule set forth in the May 2008 order, and staying discovery as to Toshiba will disrupt the efficient administration of this complex multidistrict litigation.
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?