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

Filing 127

ORDER granting extention to respond (#4168) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

1
2
3
4

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

5
6
7
8

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

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14

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

15
16
17
18

MDL NO. 3:07-md-1827-SI
This Document Relates to Individual
Case No. 3:11-cv-00711-SI
THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

21
22

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

Plaintiff,

19
20

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-00711-SI

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1

The undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, hereby respectfully request

2

an extension of the deadline for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation (f/k/a Chi Mei

3

Optoelectronics Corporation), Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

4

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

5

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. (collectively, the “Hitachi Defendants”), to respond to the

6

amended complaint filed by Plaintiff State of New York on March 15, 2011, in the above-captioned

7

litigation (the “Amended Complaint”).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WHEREAS the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants, jointly with other Defendants
in this action, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 5, 2011;
WHEREAS the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’
joint motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 9, 2011 (the “August 9, 2011 Order”);
WHEREAS on August 25, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants’ deadline
to answer the Amended Complaint to September 14, 2011;
WHEREAS on September 14, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants’
deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to October 25, 2011;
WHEREAS on October 21, 2011, Plaintiff, the Chi Mei Defendants, and the Hitachi

17

Defendants filed a joint stipulation to extend the Chi Mei and Hitachi Defendants’ deadline to

18

answer the Amended Complaint to November 22, 2011;

19
20
21

WHEREAS on October 26, 2011, the Court entered an order modifying the pretrial and trial
schedule in the above-captioned litigation;
WHEREAS on November 15, 2011, the Court entered an order (i) granting Plaintiff’s

22

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and (ii) granting in part and denying in part

23

reconsideration of the August 9, 2011 Order.

24
25
26
27

WHEREAS Plaintiff State of New York and the Chi Mei Defendants have agreed to a
settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation;
WHEREAS Plaintiff State of New York and the Hitachi Defendants have agreed to a
settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation, subject to board approval;

28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1
2
3

WHEREAS the parties would benefit from additional time to continue to negotiate the
terms of that settlement;
WHEREAS further extending the time for the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants

4

to answer the Amended Complaint would not alter the date of any other event or deadline already

5

fixed by the Court;

6
7
8
9

THEREFORE, Plaintiff State of New York and the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi
Defendants, by their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
The Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants will have until December 9, 2011 to
answer the Amended Complaint.

10
11

Dated: November 22, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: /s/ Richard L. Schwartz
Richard L. Schwartz
Richard L. Schwartz*
Acting Bureau Chief, Antitrust Bureau
Amy McFarlane*
Assistant Attorney General
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10271
[phone] (voice)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]

22

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York

23

* Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to Pretrial
Order No. 1, Dated July 3, 2007 (Waiving Civil L.R. 11-3)

24
25
26

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

27

By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV

28

Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1
2
3
4
5
6

[e-mail]
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation,
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and
CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

7
8

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

9

By: /s/
Kent M. Roger
Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987)

10
11
12
13
14
15

Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987)
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi
Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices
(USA), Inc.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1

Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this

2

document has been obtained from all parties whose signatures are indicated by a “confirmed”

3

signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

4
5
6

Dated: November 22, 2011

/s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1
2
3
4
5
6

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Having considered the foregoing stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS SO
ORDERED.

11/22
Dated: _________________, 2011

By
HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI