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).

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