AT&T Mobility LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
Filing
196
ORDER modifying fact discovery (#4296) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Robert D. Wick (pro hac vice)
Derek B. Ludwin (pro hac vice)
Brian E. Foster
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 662-6000 (telephone)
(202) 662-6291 (facsimile)
rwick@cov.com
dludwin@cov.com
bfoster@cov.com
Jeffrey M. Davidson (CA Bar No. 248620)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 591-7021 (telephone)
(415) 955-6521 (facsimile)
jdavidson@cov.com
12
13
14
Attorneys for Defendants
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST CASE NO. 3:07-md-1827 SI
LITIGATION
MDL No. 1827
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
21
22
23
24
25
AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., C 09-4997 SI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER MODIFYING FACT
DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE FOR
INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
AND DEPOSITIONS AND
PRODUCTION OF CUSTODIAL
DOCUMENTS OF DAVID
CHRISTOPHER, MARC LEFAR, AND
PETE RITCHER
26
27
28
DC: 4222310-2 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE,. C 09-4997 SI
STIPULATION
1
Plaintiffs AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
2
Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Parties”) hereby
3
stipulate as follows:
STIPULATION
4
5
WHEREAS discovery closes in this case on December 8, 2011 (“Discovery Cutoff”), as
6
set forth in the Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Schedule for “Track One” Direct
7
Action Plaintiff and Actions (Dkt. No. 3110, the “Scheduling Order”);
8
9
10
11
12
13
WHEREAS the Parties have conferred regarding the schedule set forth in the Scheduling
Order and the availability of Messrs. David Christopher, Marc Lefar, and Pete Ritcher in
advance of the Discovery Cutoff;
WHEREAS the Parties have conferred regarding the production of custodial documents
from the files of Messrs. Christopher, Lefar, and Ritcher;
WHEREAS the Parties have agreed that Messrs. Christopher and Lefar will not be
14
available for deposition prior to the Discovery Cutoff, but will be available for deposition up to
15
January 20, 2012 (the “Revised Cutoff”);
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WHEREAS the Parties continue to confer regarding whether Mr. Ritcher will appear for
deposition prior to the Revised Cutoff;
WHEREAS the Parties have agreed that Mr. Christopher’s custodial documents will be
produced in advance of his deposition;
WHEREAS the Parties continue to confer regarding the production of custodial
documents from the files of Messrs. Lefar and Ritcher;
WHEREAS Samsung has served interrogatories on AT&T, AT&T has responded, and
23
the Parties are engaging in a meet and confer process regarding supplementation of AT&T’s
24
responses;
25
WHEREAS the Parties agree to the extension of the close of fact discovery set forth in
26
the Scheduling Order for the limited purpose of allowing sufficient time to complete the
27
discovery referenced above;
28
DC: 4222310-2 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE,. C 09-4997 SI
STIPULATION
1
2
3
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, through their undersigned respective counsel, stipulate
and agree as follows:
The Discovery Cutoff in the above-captioned matter, as set forth in the Scheduling
4
Order, is extended to January 20, 2012 solely as to (a) the depositions of Messrs. Christopher
5
and Lefar; (b) the production of custodial documents of Mr. Christopher; (c) the meet and
6
confer process regarding (i) whether Mr. Ritcher will appear for deposition, and (ii) the
7
production of custodial documents for Mr. Ritcher and Mr. Lefar; and (d) the meet and confer
8
process and supplementation regarding Samsung’s interrogatories to AT&T.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
December 7, 2011
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By:
/s/ Jeffrey M. Davidson
Jeffrey M. Davidson (CA Bar No. 248620)
One Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 591-7021 (telephone)
(415) 955-6521 (facsimile)
jdavidson@cov.com
Robert D. Wick (pro hac vice)
Derek B. Ludwin (pro hac vice)
Brian E. Foster
1201 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 662-6000 (telephone)
(202) 662-6291 (facsimile)
rwick@cov.com
dludwin@cov.com
bfoster@cov.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Jason C. Murray______________
Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone:
213-443-5582
Facsimile:
213-622-2690
Email: jmurray@crowell.com
jstokes@crowell.com
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE,. C 09-4997 SI
1
Jeffrey H. Howard (pro hac vice)
Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone:
202-624-2500
Facsimile:
202-628-5116
Email: jhoward@crowell.com
jmurphy@crowell.com
2
3
4
5
6
7
Kenneth L. Adams (pro hac vice)
R. Bruce Holcomb (pro hac vice)
Christopher T. Leonardo (pro hac vice)
ADAMS HOLCOMB LLP
1875 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
202-580-8822
Facsimile:
202-580-8821
Email: adams@adamsholcomb.com
holcomb@adamsholcomb.com
leonardo@adamsholcomb.com
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Counsel for Plaintiffs AT&T Mobility, LLC;
AT&T Corp.; AT&T Services, Inc.;
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.;
Pacific Bell Telephone Company; AT&T
Operations, Inc.; AT&T DataComm
16
17
18
19
20
Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/12/11
Dated Entered: __________________
_______________________________
The Honorable Susan Illston
District Court Judge
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE,. C 09-4997 SI
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?