Target Corp. et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 413

ORDER RE: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRACK 1B AND TRACK 2 CASES) (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
/
This Order Relates to:

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827
ORDER RE: JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Best Buy v. AU Optronics Corp. et al,
Case No. 10-CV-4572,
Best Buy v. Toshiba Corp. et al
Case No. 12-CV-4114
Costco Wholesale Corporation v. AU Optronics
Corp. et al., Case No. 11-CV-00058
Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging
Devices Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-00117
Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging
Devices Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-5452
Motorola Mobility Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. et
al., Case No. 09-CV-5840
Target Corp, et. al., v. AU Optronics Corp. et al.,
Case No. 10-CV-4945
/

22

On March 15, 2013, the Court held a case management conference for the Track 1B and Track 2

23

cases. The Court informed the parties that the Track 1B trial date would be moved to July 22, 2013, and

24

instructed the parties to meet and confer about a revised pre-trial schedule based on this new trial date.

25

The parties have submitted a Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement, which

26

provides a revised pre-trial schedule and raises new disputes in the scheduling. The Court addresses

27

these issues below.

28

1

1.

Witness Lists, Exhibit Lists, Written Discovery Designations, and Deposition Designations

2

The parties acknowledge that, as discussed at the conference, the Court favors a staggered

3

approach with respect to the exchange of witness lists, exhibit lists, written discovery designations, and

4

deposition designations. The parties dispute, however, “the dates and structure of supplemental

5

disclosures and designations in the Track 1B cases.” Plaintiffs propose three exchanges: Plaintiffs’

6

initial exchange, Defendants’ initial exchange, and Plaintiffs’ supplemental exchange.1 Defendants

7

agree with the dates for the first two rounds of Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule, but propose moving up the

8

date of Plaintiffs’ supplemental exchange and including a supplemental round of Defendant

9

designations.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court agrees with Defendants that the staggered schedule should afford Plaintiffs and

11

Defendants each two full rounds of designations and instructs the parties to stipulate to a revised

12

schedule based on this conclusion. Issues remaining at the conclusion of these rounds may be addressed

13

at the pre-trial conference.

14
15

2.

Best Buy v. Toshiba Schedule

16

Best Buy and Toshiba request an Order from the Court approving their proposed revised

17

schedule as to summary judgment and Daubert motions. The Court approves the schedule with one

18

exception: the hearing date will be moved to June 19, 2013, at 3:30 pm.

19
20

3.

Other Pre-trial dates

21

As instructed by the Court at the conference, the parties provide a revised pre-trial schedule

22

based on a trial date of July 22, 2013. The Court approves the revised pre-trial schedule to which the

23

parties have stipulated, with one exception: the date for the Daubert hearing will be June 12, 2013,

24

at 9 am.

25
26

///

27
1

28

In response to Defendants’ concern that Plaintiffs may designate new material in their
supplemental designation, Plaintiffs assert that the issue can be raised at the pre-trial conference.
2

1
2

The Court directs the parties to file a stipulation providing a revised schedule of all pre-trial dates
in accordance with this Order.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 2, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3