In re TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Filing 848

ORDER re #840 Stipulation re Plaintiffs' Response to Summary Judgment Motions and Hearing DateProposed Order filed by All Plaintiffs. Hearing currently set for SJ motions on 4/18/2014 vacated. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/29/2014. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER
AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

16
17

This Document Relates to:

18

All Actions

Civil Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB-DMR
MDL No. 1913
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND HEARING
DATE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR

7

1
2

Whereas, several Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment arguing that the
filed rate doctrine precludes damage claims in this Court;

3

Whereas, Plaintiffs will file responses to those motions;

4

Whereas, on December 23, 2013, counsel for Defendant China Airlines, Ltd. (“CAL”) and

5

Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief in which Plaintiffs seek an order quashing a third-party subpoena

6

to the Airline Tariff Publication Co. (“ATPCO”). See Dkt. No. 806.

7

Whereas, on January 14, 2014, counsel for Defendant All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.

8

(“ANA”) and Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute concerning whether

9

ANA should produce its Chief Executive Officer, Osamu Shinobe, for deposition. See Dkt. No.

10
11
12
13
14
15

816.
Whereas, on January 15, 2014, counsel for Defendant EVA Airways Corporation
(“EVA”) and Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief in which Plaintiffs request that EVA be ordered to
provide a further response to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories to EVA, Interrogatory No. 1,
relating to the filed rate doctrine. See Dkt. No. 819.
Whereas, on January 15, 2014, counsel for Defendant Philippine Airlines Inc. (“PAL”)
and Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief in which Plaintiffs request that PAL be ordered to provide a

16
further response to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories to PAL, Interrogatory No. 1, relating
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

to the filed rate doctrine. See Dkt. No. 820.
Whereas, other defendants similarly situated to EVA and PAL in regards to their
responses to the same interrogatory at issue above have agreed to be bound by the resolution of
the motions concerning EVA and PAL.
Whereas, the Court set the hearing on these discovery motions for January 28, 2014, at
1:00 p.m. See Dkt. No. 821.
Whereas the Parties are using their best efforts to complete fact discovery in this matter,
including depositions, by the fact discovery deadline of January 31, 2014.
Whereas Plaintiffs have entered into stipulations with certain Defendants that,

26

notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ and those Defendants’ best efforts, certain of the Parties’ depositions

27

may occur after January 31, 2014, for the convenience of the Parties and in the interests of justice.

28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Whereas, to that end, the Parties have scheduled 18 depositions of the Parties and one
non-party deposition during the last week of January and seven depositions of the Parties during
the first week of February.
Whereas counsel for Defendant PAL will be in the Philippines during the week of January
27, 2014, preparing for five depositions scheduled during the week of February 3, 2014.
Whereas, the Court’s clerk has indicated that the Court has availability on February 13,
2014, at 3:30 p.m. to hear the motions concerning CAL, EVA, PAL, and ANA.
Whereas, the motions concerning EVA and PAL and the other defendants who are
similarly situated to EVA and PAL, bear on Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment on the filed rate doctrine.
Whereas, Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motions is presently scheduled for
February 18th, 2014.
Whereas, Plaintiffs need sufficient time after the resolution of the aforementioned motions
to respond to the summary judgment motions.
Now therefore, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for defendants Air New Zealand, ANA,
Cathay, CAL, EVA, PAL, Qantas and Singapore Airlines hereby stipulate as follows:

16
In the event that the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and orders EVA and PAL to provide
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

further responses to the interrogatory at issue, Plaintiffs’ response to the various summary
judgment motions shall be due one week after EVA and PAL and any other similarly situated
defendant provide such supplemental interrogatory answers. In no case, however, shall Plaintiffs’
response to the summary judgment motions be due prior to March 3, 2014.
If the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses by EVA and PAL,
Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motions shall be due on March 3, 2014.
If Plaintiffs do not file a declaration in support of their response to the summary judgment
motions, Defendants shall file their reply papers within 59 days of Plaintiffs’ response;
If Plaintiffs do file one or more declarations in support of their response to the summary

26

judgment motions, Defendants shall file their reply papers on May 1, 2014 or 28 days after the

27

last declarant in support of Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motions is deposed,

28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR

7

1
2

whichever is later.
The parties shall meet and confer after the filing of Plaintiffs’ response to the summary

3

judgment motions regarding deposition dates for any declarants and a hearing date for the

4

summary judgment motions.

5
6

Dated: January 27, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

7
8

10

/s/ Steven N. Williams
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
Joeseph W. Cotchett
Steven N. Williams
Adam J. Zapala

11

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

9

12

15

/s/ Christopher L. Lebsock
HAUSFELD, LLP
Michael D. Hausfeld
Michael P. Lehmann
Christopher L. Lebsock

16

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

13
14

17
18

Dated: January 27, 2014

By:

/s/ Joseph A. Meckes
SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
Joseph A. Meckes

19
20

Counsel for Defendant China Airlines

21
22
23
24
25

Dated: January 27, 2014

By:

/s/ Ankur Kapoor

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR

7

1

CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
Ankur Kapoor

2

Counsel for Defendant All Nippon Airways

3
4
5

Dated: January 27, 2014

/s/ Tammy A. Tsoumas

By:

6

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Tammy A. Tsoumas

7

Counsel for Defendant EVA Airways Corporation

8
9

Dated: January 27, 2014

By

/s/ Deana Cairo

10

DLA PIPER
Deana Cairo

11

Counsel for Defendant Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.

12
13

Dated: January 27, 2014

By:

/s/ Todd Miller

14

BAKER & MILLER PLLC
Todd Miller

15

Counsel for Qantas Airways Limited

16
17

Dated: January 27, 2014

By:

/s/ Michael Holland
CONDON & FORSYTH LLP
Michael Holland

18
19

Counsel for Air New Zealand Limited

20
21
22

Dated: January 27, 2014

By:

/s/ Willam Sherman

23

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
William Sherman

24

Counsel for Singapore Airlines Limited

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR

7

S

FO

LI

ER

H

6

RT

5

Breyer
Charless R.. Breyer
harle R
Jud e C
UNITEDgSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NO

4

Dated: January 29, 2014

A

3

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

R NIA

2

UNIT
ED

SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR

7