The State of New York v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 116

Order Regarding Time to File Expert Disclosure by The State of New York (11-0711) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2011)

Richard L. Schwartz (NY Bar No. 1821081)*
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10271
Telephone: [phone] (Richard L. Schwartz)
Facsimile: 212-416-6015
Email: [e-mail]
*Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission
Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1,
Dated July 3, 2007 (Waiving Civil L.R. 11-3)
Attorney for Plaintiff, State of New York
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MASTER FILE NO. 07-md-1827-SI
MDL File No. 1827

This Document Relates to
Case Nos. 3:07-MD-1827 and 3:11-CV-711
_________________________________________

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI

STATE OF NEW YORK
by and through ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,
Attorney General
Plaintiff,

PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW
YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
TIME TO FILE EXPERT
DISCLOSURE
Judge Susan Y. Illston

v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

WHEREAS the revised scheduling order in the above-captioned case provides that
plaintiff must disclose to defendants the identity of its expert(s) and provide a one-paragraph
description of the issues to be addressed by each expert on October 3, 2011;

STATE OF NEW YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

MASTER FILE NO. 07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI

WHEREAS Plaintiff State of New York contemplates retaining two experts - a direct
damages expert and an indirect damages expert - in the above-captioned case;
WHEREAS any direct damages expert retained by Plaintiff State of New York may
address: (i) the conditions for cartel behavior, particularly in light of the characteristics of TFTLCD panels and the structure of the TFT-LCD industry; (ii) whether the economic evidence,
including pricing behavior, is consistent with the existence of a conspiracy among Defendants;
(iii) whether the cartel had an economic impact by increasing prices above competitive levels
with respect to direct purchasers, particularly as to the claims assigned to New York by HP, Dell,
IBM, and Lenovo (the “Assigned Claims”); (iv) whether New York was injured; (v) the amount
of damages and/or restitution to which New York is entitled pursuant to the Assigned Claims;
(vi) the volume of TFT-LCD commerce with respect to New York; and (viii) may also respond
to any economic analysis that seeks to deny the existence of Defendants’ conspiracy, the effects
of the conspiracy, or the participants in the conspiracy;
WHEREAS any indirect damages expert retained by New York may address: (i) the
conditions for cartel behavior, particularly in light of the characteristics of TFT-LCD panels and
the structure of the TFT-LCD industry; (ii) whether the economic evidence, including pricing
behavior, is consistent with the existence of a conspiracy among Defendants; (iii) whether the
cartel had an economic impact by increasing prices above competitive levels with respect to
direct purchasers, or employ analysis and results generated by New York's direct damages
expert; calculate the extent of any pass-through of the overcharges; (iv) whether the overcharges
resulted in higher prices with respect to the end-payor purchases that have been asserted in New
York’s complaint; (v) whether New York was injured; (vi) the nominal recoveries for damages
and/or restitution to which New York is entitled; (vii) the volume of TFT-LCD commerce with

STATE OF NEW YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

MASTER FILE NO. 07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI

respect to New York; and (viii) may also respond to any economic analysis that seeks to deny the
existence of Defendants’ conspiracy, the effects of the conspiracy, or the participants in the
conspiracy;
WHEREAS Plaintiff State of New York desires additional time to identify its experts;
WHEREAS extending the time for Plaintiff State of New York to identify its experts
would not alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by the Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Undersigned Parties, acting by and through their respective
counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows:
Plaintiff State of New York will have until October 17, 2011 to identify its experts.

Dated: October 3, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
BY: _________/s/________________
Richard L. Schwartz
Acting Bureau Chief, Antitrust Bureau
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10271
[phone] (voice)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York
*Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to Pretrial
Order No. 1, Dated July 3, 2007 (Waiving Civil L.R. 11-3)

STATE OF NEW YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

3

MASTER FILE NO. 07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI

Dated: October 3, 2011

BY: _____________/s/_____________
Michael R. Lazerwitz (PRO HAC VICE)
Jeremy J. Calsyn (State Bar No. 205062)
Lee F. Berger (State Bar No. 222756)
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG
Display America, Inc.

Dated: October 3, 2011

BY: ___________/s/_______________
Christopher A. Nedeau
Carl L. Blumenstein
Allison Dibley
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone] (telephone)
Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and
AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc.

Dated: October 3, 2011

BY: ____________/s/______________
Sandra West (SBN 250389)
Christopher B. Hockett (SBN 121539)
Neal A. Potischman (SBN 254862)
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
[phone] / [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation
(f/k/a/ Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp.), Chi Mei
Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

STATE OF NEW YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

4

MASTER FILE NO. 07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI

Dated: October 3, 2011

BY: _____________/s/_____________
Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987)
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Defendants Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Displays
Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

Dated: October 3, 2011

BY: ____________/s/_____________
John M. Grenfell
Jacob R. Sorensen
Fusae Nara
Andrew D. Lanphere
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attorneys for Defendants Sharp Corporation and Sharp
Electronics Corp.

STATE OF NEW YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

5

MASTER FILE NO. 07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI

Dated: October 3, 2011

BY: _/s/ John H. Chung________________
John H. Chung (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2787
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice)
Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3807
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba
Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc., and Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc.

Attestation: The filer of this documents attests that the concurrence of the other signatories
thereto has been obtained.

SO ORDERED
___________________________
Honorable Susan J. Illston
10/3/11
___________________________
Date Entered

STATE OF NEW YORK'S STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

6

MASTER FILE NO. 07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-711-SI