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)

Download PDF
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?