Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Berstein, LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

Filing 27

ORDER continuing August 12, 2010 hearing. The clerk is directed to terminate the parties' cross-motions for judgment, Doc #14 & 16, administratively. (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2010).

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Berstein, LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

Doc. 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION, Defendant. ______________________________/ The above-captioned Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") action is a product of a consolidated multi-district litigation entitled In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, M:10-2143 VRW ("ODD"). The individual actions making up the ODD LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Plaintiff, No C 10-0013 VRW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER

case were filed in the wake of public disclosures of an ongoing United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division ("DOJ") investigation into possible violations of antitrust law in the ODD industry ("criminal investigation"). Doc #16 at 10. Plaintiff in

this FOIA case, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

("Lieff"), apparently in preparation of an anticipated Twombly motion to dismiss in the civil ODD action, has requested, via the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552, that DOJ produce subpoenas the DOJ issued to entities that manufacture and sell optical disk drives as part of the criminal investigation. Corp v Twombly, 550 US 554 (2007). See Bell Atlantic

The DOJ refuses to produce any

subpoenas, arguing that ---- to the extent subpoenas responsive to Lieff's FOIA request exist ---- responsive subpoenas would be grand jury subpoenas; which, in the DOJ's view, fall squarely within several FOIA exemptions. Lieff and DOJ filed cross-motions for summary judgment on April 29, 2010. Docs #14 & 16. The matter is currently scheduled Doc #25.

for argument on August 12, 2010.

The court deems it prudent to continue the August 12 hearing subject to the civil discovery calendar in the ODD case. The clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the parties' cross-motions for judgment administratively. Doc #14 & 16. The parties may re-

notice their motions for hearing when the relevant consolidated complaint is at issue in the ODD matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2