Electrograph Systems, Inc. et al v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation et al

Filing 302

ORDER FOR FURTHER DECLARATIONS RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PURCHASES OF PANELS MADE BY SUPPOSED CONSPIRATORS NOT ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINTS. The parties shall file the declarations no later than November 7, 2012.(Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/2/2012) Modified on 11/5/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 10 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION 11 No. M 07-1827 SI MDL. No. 1827 / 12 This Order Relates to: ORDER FOR FURTHER DECLARATIONS RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PURCHASES OF PANELS MADE BY SUPPOSED CONSPIRATORS NOT ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINTS 13 AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., C 09-4997 SI 14 Best Buy Co., Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 15 C 10-4572 SI 16 Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., C 10-0117 SI 17 Target Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 18 C 10-4945 SI 19 20 / On November 2, 2012, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment 21 as to purchases of panels made by supposed conspirators not alleged in the complaints. 22 In their reply brief, defendants stated that plaintiffs served Attachment A to Certain Defendants’ 23 Interrogatory Responses on January 30, 2012, after the close of fact discovery. Docket No. 6708 at 5:15. 24 However, at the hearing plaintiffs’ counsel stated that AT&T first served Attachment A in May 2011, 25 and that the other plaintiffs served Attachment A (or updated versions thereof) at different times in 2011, 26 all before the close of fact discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel also asserted that defendants did not conduct 27 any discovery on the co-conspirators identified in Attachment A. The information provided by plaintiffs’ 28 counsel regarding when Attachment A was served on defendants was not contained in plaintiffs’ 1 opposition papers or declarations. 2 The Court finds that an understanding of when Attachment A was served on defendants in each 3 of the four cases will assist the Court in resolving defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the Court directs 4 plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel to file declarations stating (1) when Attachment A was served on 5 defendants in each case, (2) whether defendants conducted any discovery regarding the identities of 6 alleged co-conspirators named in Attachment A, and if so when, and (3) whether any of the entities at 7 issue in defendants’ motion were never listed on Attachment A, and if so, which ones. The parties shall 8 file the declarations no later than November 7, 2012. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: November 2, 2012 13 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?