Oliver et al v. SD-3 LLC et al

Filing 75

ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED 74 STIPULATION To Set Motion to Dismiss Briefing Schedule and Page Limits and to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/13/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2012)

Case3:11-cv-01260-JSW Document74 Filed02/02/12 Page1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ALDO A. BADINI (SBN 257086)
[e-mail]
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
JEFFREY L. KESSLER (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11

Attorneys for Defendants
PANASONIC CORPORATION
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]

12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

)
DR. DAN OLIVER, JEANNIE OLIVER, JOE )
SOLO, BERNARD GROSS, SUSAN KEELIN, )
WALTER KVASNIK, KOU
)
SRIMOUNGHANCH, HUMBERTO
)
GONZALEZ, SAMUEL D. LEGGETT, BRIAN )
ALBEE, MARY LOUISE FOWLER, JOE
)
SHAW, and RHONDA SCHULTZ, on their
)
own behalves and on behalf of all others
)
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SD-3C, LLC; PANASONIC CORP.;
)
PANASONIC CORP. OF NORTH AMERICA; )
TOSHIBA CORP.; TOSHIBA AMERICA
)
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; and
)
SANDISK CORP.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. CV-11-1260 JSW

JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO SET
MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS AND
TO STAY DISCOVERY

28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C ASE NO.: CV-11-1260 JSW

Case3:11-cv-01260-JSW Document74 Filed02/02/12 Page2 of 5

1

WHEREAS on June 27, 2011, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and

2

defendants Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba Corporation,

3

Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., SD-3C, LLC, and SanDisk Corporation

4

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Joint Stipulation to Extend Time Within Which to Respond to

5

Complaint Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), which provided that Defendants’ time to respond to an

6

amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs would be extended to include the ninetieth (90th) day after

7

the filing date of such an amended complaint;

8

WHEREAS on November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint;

9

WHEREAS, pursuant to the June 27, 2011 stipulation among the parties, the time for

10

Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint was extended to February 21, 2012, which

11

is the ninetieth day after the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint;

12
13
14

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES
HERETO, through their respective counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that:
(1.)

Defendants may file a single joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ First Amended

15

Complaint and a consolidated memorandum of points and authorities in support of their joint

16

motion; Plaintiffs may file a single opposition to Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss; and

17

Defendants may file a single consolidated reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition.

18

(2.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the time for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to

19

Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss shall be extended to and include the forty-fifth (45th) day after

20

the date on which Defendants file their joint motion to dismiss.

21

(3.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the time for Defendants to file their consolidated

22

reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss shall be extended to and

23
24

include the twenty-fifth (25th) day after the date on which Plaintiffs file their opposition.
forty (40)
(4.)
Defendants shall have a page limit of fifty (50) pages for their consolidated brief in

25

support of their joint motion to dismiss (notwithstanding that the six defendants would be entitled

26

to an aggregate of ninety pages, or fifteen pages each, pursuant to the Court’s Civil Standing
forty (40)
Orders); Plaintiffs shall have a page limit of fifty (50) pages for their brief in opposition; and
twenty-five (25)
Defendants shall have a page limit of thirty (30) pages for their consolidated brief in reply.

27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C ASE NO.: CV-11-1260 JSW

Case3:11-cv-01260-JSW Document74 Filed02/02/12 Page3 of 5

1

(5.)

The stay of discovery in this case, which has been in effect pursuant to a stipulation

2

among the parties that was So Ordered by the Court on June 28, 2011, shall be extended pursuant to

3

Local Rule 6-2(a), and all discovery in this action shall be stayed through the ninetieth (90th) day

4

after the Court enters an Order resolving the Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First

5

Amended Complaint, unless Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint, in which case discovery

6

shall be stayed until the Court enters an Order resolving the Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss

7

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

8

(6.)

No party shall serve requests for discovery until the stay has expired.

9

(7.)

The parties shall not be required to serve initial disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule

10

of Civil Procedure 26(a), until the stay of discovery has expired.

11

(8.)

This Stipulation is made without prejudice to any party’s right to move to extend the

12

stay of discovery.

13

(9.)

The parties agree and stipulate that they will confer and propose to the Court a date

14

for the Case Management Conference and associated discovery and ADR obligations after the stay

15

requested herein expires.

16

(10.)

This Stipulation applies to this proceeding only.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C ASE NO.: CV-11-1260 JSW

2

Case3:11-cv-01260-JSW Document74 Filed02/02/12 Page4 of 5

1

Dated: February 2, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

2

By: s/Max L. Tribble
Max L. Tribble*
Joseph S. Grinstein*
Eric J. Mayer*
Susman Godfrey LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
*admitted pro hac vice

By: s/Aldo A. Badini
Aldo A. Badini (SBN 257086)
Ian L. Papendick (SBN 275648)
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street
Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Jeffrey L. Kessler*
James F. Lerner*
Susannah P. Torpey*
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

David S. Turetsky*
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
1101 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
*admitted pro hac vice

13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America

17

By: s/Christopher B. Hockett
Christopher B. Hockett (SBN 121539)
Neal A. Potischman (SBN 254862)
Samantha H. Knox (SBN 254427)
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

18
19
20
21
22

Attorneys for Defendant
SD-3C, LLC

23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C ASE NO.: CV-11-1260 JSW

3

Case3:11-cv-01260-JSW Document74 Filed02/02/12 Page5 of 5

By: s/Daniel M. Wall
Daniel M. Wall (SBN 102580)
Belinda S. Lee (SBN 199635)
Sarah M. Ray (SBN 229670)
Latham & Watkins LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

1
2
3
4
5

Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation and
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

6
7

By: s/Frank M. Hinman
Frank M. Hinman (SBN 157402)
Sujal J. Shah (SBN 215230)
Rianne E. Rocca (SBN 221640)
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10
11
12

Richard S. Taffet*
Bingham McCutchen LLP
399 Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-4689
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
*admitted pro hac vice

13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendant
SanDisk Corporation

17
18
19

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 § X.B., the filer attests that concurrence
in the filing of this document has been obtained from the above signatories.

20
21

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

February 13
Dated: _______________, 2012

________________________
Hon. Jeffrey S. White
United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C ASE NO.: CV-11-1260 JSW

4