State of Oregon v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 44

ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT by Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices re 43 Stipulation. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2011) Modified on 9/29/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
KENT M. ROGER, State Bar No, 95987
HERMAN J. HOYING, State Bar No. 257495
JENNIFER L. CALVERT, State Bar No. 258018
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD.,
HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

13
14
15
16

STATE OF OREGON, ex rel. John Kroger, This Document Relates to Individual Case No.
3:10-cv-4346 SI
Attorney General,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Master File No. 3:07-md-1827
MDL No. 1827

17
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
18
19

Defendants.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

1
2
3

WHEREAS plaintiff State of Oregon (“Oregon”) filed the above captioned lawsuit on
August 10, 2010;
WHEREAS Oregon filed a first amended complaint on April 15, 2011 (“Amended

4
Complaint”);
5
6

WHEREAS Defendants Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

7

and Hitachi, Ltd. (collectively, the “Hitachi Defendants”) and Defendants Chi Mei Corporation,

8

Chi Mei Innolux Corporation, CMO Japan Co., Ltd., and Chi Mei Optoelectronic USA, Inc.

9

(collectively, the “Chi Mei Defendants”) jointly filed with other defendants a motion to dismiss

10
11

Count III in its entirety and Count IV to the extent it seeks “disgorgement of profits” as a remedy
on June 6, 2011;

12
13
14
15

WHEREAS the Court denied Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss Counts III and IV of the
Amended Complaint on July 12, 2011;
WHEREAS all defendants, including the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants,

16

entered into a stipulation with Oregon on July 21, 2011 that Defendants’ deadline to answer the

17

Amended Complaint was August 12, 2011;

18
19

WHEREAS on July 21, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants’ deadline
to answer the Amended Complaint until August 12, 2011;

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation
with Oregon on August 11, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline
to answer the Amended Complaint is September 12, 2011;
WHEREAS on August 24, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi
Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until
September 12, 2011;

27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-2-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation
with Oregon on September 9, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’
deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 26, 2011;

4
WHEREAS on September 13, 2011 the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi
5
6
7

Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until
September 26, 2011;

8

WHEREAS extending the Hitachi Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ time to respond

9

to the Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by

10
11

the Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the

12
13
14

undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Oregon, on the one hand, and the
Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants on the other hand, as follows:

15

Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants will have until November 4, 2011 to

16

answer Oregon’s Amended Complaint. Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants

17

agree that they will work with Oregon to expedite discovery during the time period

18
19

October 4 through November 4, 2011, unless changed circumstances make clear
immediate responses to Oregon’s requests for discovery are unnecessary.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-3-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Dated: September 23, 2011
HAGLUND KELLEY HORNGREN JONES & WILDER
LLP

2
3

/s/ Michael K. Kelley
Michael E. Haglund (SBN 772030)
Michael K. Kelley (SBN 853782)
Shay S. Scott (SBN 934214)
HAGLUND KELLEY HORNGREN JONES & WILDER
LLP
200 SW Market Street, Suite 1777
Portland, OR 97201
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Counsel for State of Oregon

10
OREGON SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

11

Tim D. Nord (SBN 882800)
1162 Court Street, NW
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16

Counsel for State of Oregon

17

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

18

/s/ Kent M. Roger
Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987)
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

19
20
21
22

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays,
Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

23
24
25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-4-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

2

/s/ Sandra West
Christopher B. Hockett (SBN 121539)
Neal A. Potischman (SBN 254862)
Sandra West (SBN 250389)
Samantha H. Knox (SBN 254427)
Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Jonathan D. Martin (admitted pro hac vice)
Bradley R. Hansen (admitted pro hac vice)
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation
(F/K/A Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp.), Chi Mei
Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-5-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

FILER’S ATTESTATION

2

I, Kent M. Roger, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file

3

this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby

4

attest that Michael M. Kelley and Sandra West concur in this filing.

5

/s/ Kent M. Roger
Kent M. Roger

6

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays,
Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-6-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation set forth above and pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Civil
Local Rules, IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

27
Dated: September ___, 2011

6
By

7

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-7-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22674496.1

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-4346 SI; MDL NO. 1827
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER