State of Oregon v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 59

ORDER re: extenstion of time to respond to amended complaint (#4536) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)

4536
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

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

DB2/ 22887853.1

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22887853.1

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

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/ 22887853.1

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
8
9
10
11

Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until
September 26, 2011;
WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation
with Oregon on September 23, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’
deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is November 4, 2011;
WHEREAS on September 28, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi

12
13
14
15

Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until
November 4, 2011;
WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation

16

with Oregon on November 3, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’

17

deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is December 9, 2011;

18
19

WHEREAS on November 4, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi
Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until

20
21
22

December 9, 2011;
WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation

23

with Oregon on December 6, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’

24

deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is January 13, 2012;

25
26

WHEREAS on December 12, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi
Defendants’ and Chi Mei Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until January

27
13, 2012;
28
M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-3-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22887853.1

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

1

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

2

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

3

the Court;

4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the
5
6
7
8
9
10

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:
Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants will have until March 2, 2012 to answer
Oregon’s Amended Complaint.
Dated: January 11, 2012
HAGLUND KELLEY HORNGREN JONES & WILDER
LLP

11
12

/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]

13
14
15
16
17
18

Counsel for State of Oregon

19
20

OREGON SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

21

24

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

25

Counsel for State of Oregon

22
23

26
27
28

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

-4-

S A N F R A N CIS CO

DB2/ 22887853.1

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

1
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2
/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]

3
4
5
6
7

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

8
9

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

10

/s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

11
12
13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendants Chi Mei Corporation,
Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA,
Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

16
17
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/ 22887853.1

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 Harrison J. Frahn IV 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/ 22887853.1

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

Dated: January ___, 2012
12

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/ 22887853.1

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