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

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO RESPOND (NEW YORK) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
JOHN M. GRENFELL (CA Bar No. 88500)
[e-mail]
JACOB R. SORENSEN (CA Bar No. 209134)
[e-mail]
FUSAE NARA (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
ANDREW D. LANPHERE (CA Bar No. 191479)
[e-mail]
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
SHARP CORPORATION and
SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

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

This Document Relates To:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING SHARP’S TIME
TO ANSWER AMENDED
COMPLAINT

16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 3:11-cv-711 SI
STATE OF NEW YORK, by and through,
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney
General,

21
22
23

Plaintiff,
v.
AU Optronics Corporation, et al.,

24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28

500928709v1

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827

1

WHEREAS plaintiff State of New York filed an Amended Complaint in the above-

2

captioned case against Defendants AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation

3

America, Inc., Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.,

4

CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices

5

(USA), Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,

6

Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Sharp

7

Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Matsushita

8

Display Technology Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba

9

America Electronic Components, Inc. on March 15, 2011, Dkt. no. 2556;

10
11
12
13
14

WHEREAS the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 9, 2011;
WHEREAS Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation (together,
“Sharp”) desire a reasonable amount of time to answer the Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS the Court previously entered Orders extending the time to answer the

15

Amended Complaint on August 25, 2011, as stipulated by Plaintiff and Sharp and on

16

September 13, 2011, as stipulated by Plaintiff and Sharp; and

17
18
19
20
21

WHEREAS the requested time modification will not affect any other deadline in
this case.
THEREFORE, the State of New York and Sharp hereby agree that Sharp’s deadline
to answer to the Amended Complaint shall be November 28, 2011.
Dated: October 25, 2011

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1500928709v1

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827

1

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York

2
By:
/s/ Richard L. Schwartz
Richard L. Schwartz
Acting Bureau Chief, Antitrust Bureau
Amy McFarlane
Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10271
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York

9

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
JOHN M. GRENFELL
JACOB R. SORENSEN
FUSAE NARA
ANDREW D. LANPHERE
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

10
11
12
13
14

By:

15

/s/ John M. Grenfell
John M. Grenfell

16
Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION
and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

17
18

ATTESTATION: Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that the

19

concurrence of the other signatory hereto has been obtained.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: ______________
10/25/11

Honorable Susan Illston

24
25
26
27
28
-2500928709v1

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827