CMP Consulting Services, Inc. v. Sony Corporation et al

Filing 154

ORDER by Judge Seeborg in case 3:09-cv-05114-RS; Re (395) Motion for Extension of Time to File in case 3:10-md-02143-RS (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2011)

**E-filed 8/27/2011**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE

13

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CASE NO. 3:10-md-2143 RS
ORDER RE DEADLINE FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINTS

14
15
16

This Document Relates to:
ALL ACTIONS

17
18
19

The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek an order extending their time to file an amended

20

complaint for an additional 30 days beyond the time set by the order granting the motions to

21

dismiss. Defendants oppose, stating that while they offered a “reasonable” two week extension,

22

further time is unwarranted and would cause administrative difficulties were they then required to

23

respond to the indirect purchasers’ amended complaint prior to when a response to the direct

24

purchasers’ amended complaint becomes due. While it may be reasonable for defendants to believe

25

that some lines must be drawn to prevent endless delay, in litigation of this scope, which has already

26

been pending for some time and which undoubtedly will take significant additional time to resolve,

27

the parties should be able to resolve among themselves what is essentially a two-week difference in

28

their respective views. The parties are therefore directed to meet and confer further to arrive at a

1

stipulated schedule for (1) the filing of both amended complaints, (2) the filing of such responsive

2

motions as any defendants may wish to bring (or, of any answers in lieu of such motions), and (3)

3

any briefing due dates for such motions, to the extent that the parties may agree it is appropriate to

4

depart from the schedule provided by the local rules.

5

The statement in the order granting the motions to dismiss that it would be sufficient to

6

provide only 30 day for amendments was made in response to a request by the indirect purchaser

7

plaintiffs that they be afforded an opportunity to locate additional representative plaintiffs from

8

jurisdictions not presently represented; it was not intended as a conclusive determination as to how

9

much time might be appropriate for plaintiffs to prepare amended complaints addressing all of the
issues identified in the order. That said, it is also not immediately apparent why a full 30 additional

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

days would be necessary. In any event, the parties should strive to reach an agreement that

12

reasonably accommodates their respective schedules and needs, and which will see this matter

13

through to the conclusion of the next round of motions without the need for court resolution of any

14

relatively minor scheduling disagreements.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: August 17, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2