Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 222

ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Motorola's Third Amended Complaint by Philips Electronics North America Corporation. (#4178) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172)
([e-mail])
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2498
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
([e-mail])
Shawn Joe Lichaa (SBN 250902)
([e-mail])
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15

Master File No. M 07-1827 SI
Case No. 09-cv-5840 SI

IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

16

MDL No. 1827

17
18

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO MOTOROLA’S THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

This Document Relates To:
Case No. 09-cv-5840 SI

19
20

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., et al.,
Plaintiff,

21
22

v.

23
24
25

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTOROLA’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
MASTER FILE NO. M 07-1827 SI

1

Whereas Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) filed its Third Amended

2

Complaint (“TAC”) in the above-captioned matter on July 22, 2011, naming Philips Electronics North

3

America Corporation (“PENAC”) as a defendant;

4
5
6
7

Whereas PENAC moved to dismiss the claims in the TAC on September 12, 2011, and
the Court denied that motion on November 16, 2011;
Whereas, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), PENAC’s deadline to answer the TAC
is currently on or around November 30, 2011;

8

Whereas PENAC requires additional time to prepare its answer to the TAC;

9

Whereas Motorola’s First Set of Interrogatories to PENAC included Interrogatory No. 7,

10

which sought information related to the factual bases for PENAC’s affirmative defenses to the TAC;

11

Whereas PENAC previously responded to Interrogatory No. 7 indicating that PENAC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

had not yet filed an answer and therefore had not yet asserted affirmative defenses;
Whereas Motorola requests that PENAC update its response to Interrogatory No. 7 after
PENAC answers the TAC;
Whereas Motorola wishes to preserve the option of moving to compel a response to
Interrogatory No. 7;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Motorola and
PENAC, through their respective undersigned counsel, as follows:

19

1.

The deadline for PENAC to answer the TAC will be December 20, 2011;

20

2.

The deadline for PENAC to respond to Interrogatory No. 7 will be January 13,

21

2012, without prejudice to PENAC’s right to supplement, amend, or correct its

22

response to Interrogatory No. 7 as PENAC becomes aware of additional

23

information; and

24
25

3.

The deadline for Motorola to move to compel a response with respect to
Interrogatory No. 7 will be February 13, 2012.

26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP

-2STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTOROLA’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
MASTER FILE NO. M 07-1827 SI

1

Dated: November 23, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

2
/s/ Brendan P. Cullen
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
Shawn Joe Lichaa (SBN 250902)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

3
4
5
6
7

Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2498
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendant Philips Electronics
North America Corporation

11
12

/s/ Nathanial J. Wood
Nathanial J. Wood (CA Bar No. 223547)
Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806)
Joshua C. Stokes (CA Bar No. 220214)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower St. 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213-622-2690
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-628-5116
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24
25

Counsel for Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc.

26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.
-3STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTOROLA’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
MASTER FILE NO. M 07-1827 SI

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

11/23
Dated: _________________, 2011

_______________________________________
The Honorable Susan Illston
United Stated District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP

-4STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTOROLA’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
MASTER FILE NO. M 07-1827 SI