T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v AU Optronics Corporation, et al

Filing 127

MOTION Entry of a Track Two Scheduling Order and Trial Setting filed by T-Mobile USA Inc. Motion Hearing set for 7/6/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 6/19/2012. Replies due by 6/26/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Folse, Parker) (Filed on 6/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Kenneth S. Marks (pro hac vice)
Johnny W. Carter (pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002-5096
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Parker C. Folse III (pro hac vice)
Rachel Black (pro hac vice)
Jordan Connors (pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of
the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust
[additional counsel listed on signature page]

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10

12

Master Docket No. M:07-1827 SI
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
_________________________________________ MDL No. 1827

13

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

14

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.
3:10-cv-3205-SI
SB Liquidating Trust v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:10-cv-5458-SI
Sony Electronics Inc. v. LG Display Co., Ltd.,
3:10-cv-5616-SI
Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City
Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust, v. AU Optronics
Corp., 3:10-cv-5625-SI
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp,
3:11-cv-829-SI.
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-2225-SI
Jaco Electronics, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-2495-SI
T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-2591-SI
Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. NEC Corp., et al.,
3:11-cv-3342-SI
Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-3763-SI
Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of
Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC, v.
AU Optronics Corp., 3:11-cv-3856-SI

11

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order
2290988v1/011997

Case No. 3:10-cv-3205-SI
Case No. 3:10-cv-5458-SI
Case No. 3:10-cv-5616-SI
Case No. 3:10-cv-5625-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-829-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-2225-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-2495-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-2591-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-3342-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-3763-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-3856-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-4116-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-4119-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-4119-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-4119-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-5765-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-5781-SI
Case No. 3:11-cv-6241-SI
Case No. 3:12-cv-335-SI
Case No. 3:12-cv-1426-SI
Case No. 3:12-cv-1599-SI
Case No. 3:12-cv-2214-SI
Case No. 3:12-cv-2495-SI
TRACK TWO DIRECT ACTION
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF A TRACK TWO
SCHEDULING ORDER AND TRIAL
SETTING
MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-4116-SI
ABC Appliance, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-4119-SI
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc. v. AU
Optronics Corp., 3:11-cv-4119-SI
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v. AU
Optronics Corp., 3:11-cv-4119-SI
Tech Data Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:11-cv-5765-SI
The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and
through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee, v.
AU Optronics Corp., 3:11-cv-5781-SI
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronic Corp.,
3:11-cv-6241-SI
Viewsonic Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:12-cv-335-SI
NECO Alliance LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:12-cv-1426-SI
Sony Electronics Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:12-cv-1599-SI
Sony Electronics Inc. v. Hannstar Display Corp.,
3:12-cv-2214-SI
Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
3:12-cv-2495-SI

Date:
Time:
Ct. Room:

July 6, 2012
9:00 a.m.
No. 10, 19th Floor
The Honorable Susan Illston

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
3

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ......................................................................................... 1

4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................. 2

5

I.

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2

6

II.

ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 3

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................... 10

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - i
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1
2
3
4

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 9:00 a.m. on July 6, 2012, or at such time subject to
the Court’s calendar, plaintiffs in the captioned cases will, and hereby do, move before the

5
Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge, at the United States Courthouse, 450
6
7
8
9

Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 10, San Francisco, California, for an order directing the pretrial
and trial schedule of these cases.
This motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and is based upon

10

the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed concurrently with this Notice, the

11

records, pleadings and papers filed in these cases and in Master Docket No. M-07-01827-SI, and

12

upon such argument as may be presented to the Court at the hearing on this motion.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 1
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

The Direct Action Plaintiffs in the captioned cases (“Track Two DAPs”) submit this

3

Memorandum in support of their motion for entry of a pretrial and trial scheduling order for these

4
cases. A proposed Order re: Pretrial and Trial Schedule for Track Two Direct Action Cases is
5
6
7

submitted with the motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

8

On November 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order Re: Pretrial and Trial Schedule for

9

the direct and indirect purchaser class actions in the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

10

and for all Direct Action Plaintiffs (the “Track One DAPs”) and all State AG Plaintiffs in cases

11

on file by December 1, 2010 (the “Track One DAP Scheduling Order”). (Docket No. 2165) The

12

Track One DAP Scheduling Order prescribed all pretrial deadlines, including completion of fact

13
14

discovery and disclosure and discovery of experts, and set a trial date for the Track One DAPs of

15

November 5, 2012. While a later Stipulation modified certain of the pretrial deadlines applicable

16

to the Track One DAPs and the AG Plaintiffs (Docket No. 3110), the trial date for those cases

17

was unchanged and remains November 5, 2012.

18
19

The Track One DAP Scheduling Order recognized that other direct action cases had been
and were likely to be filed after December 1, 2010 and provided that “[d]irect action and State

20
AG cases filed after December 1, 2010, will be subject to a separate pretrial and trial schedule, or,
21
22
23

if circumstances permit, will be folded into the schedule set forth in this order.” Order Re:
Pretrial and Trial Schedule, November 23, 2010, at 1, n. 1.1

24
1

25
26
27
28

Subsequent to the entry of the Track One Scheduling Order, certain of the State AGs negotiated separate
scheduling stipulations with the defendants, which were entered by the Court, e.g., Order Regarding Extension of
Time on Deadlines in Case Schedule, December 16, 2011 (applicable to Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia,
Michigan and Wisconsin) (Docket No. 4393); Order Modifying Pretrial Schedule, February 2, 2012 (New York)
(Docket No. 4750). On May 25, 2012, the State AGs of Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Florida and New York submitted a proposed Stipulation Regarding Extension of Time on Deadlines in Case
Schedule. (Docket No. 5793) That proposed stipulation states that the applicable AGs “are entering into this
stipulation to finalize settlement agreements” in their respective actions. Id. at 2. The State AG cases are not
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 2
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1
2
3

Counsel for the Track Two DAPs conferred for months with counsel for defendants over a
pretrial and resulting trial schedule appropriate for these cases but have been unable to reach
agreement. The parties appear to be in agreement over the deadlines to be included in a Track

4
Two DAP scheduling order and in the sequencing of those deadlines. The principal disagreement
5
6

is over whether these cases should be included in a single Track Two DAP schedule or whether,

7

as defendants argue, the DAPs in these cases should be separated into three pretrial and trial

8

schedules for a Track Two, Track Three, and Track Four, each separated by a period of several

9

months of more. The Track Two DAPs believe that a single schedule for these cases is

10
11

appropriate and will not result in undue burden or complication for the defendants. The proposed
common schedule for the Track Two DAPs also completely moves these cases through the

12
13

Court’s calendar by the end of 2013. In contrast, defendants’ multi-track approach delays

14

resolution of these cases well into 2014 and likely into 2015.

15

II.

16
17
18
19

ARGUMENT
Both the schedule and the cases included in the proposed Track Two DAP schedule are

reasonable and appropriate.
The pretrial deadlines and the sequencing of those deadlines generally are based on those
in the Track One DAP Scheduling Order. Reasonable periods are provided for the completion of

20
fact discovery limited to the Track Two DAP cases (12/7/12), the designation of experts
21
22

(plaintiffs 9/7/12, defendants 10/12/12), the provision of expert reports (ending 6/14/13), the

23

completion of expert discovery (7/19/13), and the briefing and submission of dispositive motions,

24

to the extent any are filed. The proposed Track Two DAP schedule provides for dispositive

25

motions to be heard no later than November 1, 2013, following which the Court can enter dates

26

for the remand of cases filed outside this district to the transferor courts and for the pretrial

27
28

included in this motion and the proposed pretrial and trial schedule submitted with this motion.
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 3
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

conference and trial of the remaining Track Two DAP cases. Under this schedule, the Track Two

2

DAP cases filed in this court will be ready for trial in 2013.

3
4

The twenty-three DAP cases proposed to be included in the Track Two DAP schedule will
not cause undue burden to defendants.2 There is sufficient time between now and the close of

5
6

fact discovery in December 2012 for defendants to take the limited discovery they legitimately

7

need from plaintiffs. A number of the Track Two DAPs have produced to defendants the key

8

information they need -- data on their purchases and/or sales of LCD panels and products. Some

9

Track Two DAPs have produced other documents, as well.

10
11

Expert discovery in the Track Two DAP cases also can proceed on the proposed schedule
without undue complication. Plaintiffs’ expert reports are due in January 2013, and defendants’

12
13

expert reports are due ninety days’ later in April 2013. By this point, defendants are well-

14

practiced at producing responsive expert reports in the LCD cases, having done so both in the

15

class cases and more recently in the Track One DAP cases. Further, a number of the Track Two

16

DAPs expect to designate several of the same experts as the Track One DAPs, so defendants will

17

have the added benefit of reviewing their work product and deposing them at least once before.

18

Summary judgment motion practice, to the extent it occurs in the Track Two DAP cases,

19
is easily manageable. The Court’s rulings on the numerous summary judgment motions in the
20
21

class cases should obviate or at least severely limit the need for summary judgment motions in the

22

Track Two DAP cases. Those that are filed in the face of the prior rulings can be handled on the

23

proposed briefing and hearing schedule, which spans a period of two and one-half months.

24

While new DAP cases may (or may not) be filed after the proposed Track Two DAP

25
2

26
27
28

The proposed Track Two DAP scheduling order is like the Track One DAP Scheduling Order in that it provides a
cut-off date for the DAP cases to which it applies. Under the Track One DAP Scheduling Order, DAP cases filed
after December 1, 2010 are subject to a separate scheduling order, or they may be included in the Track One DAP
Scheduling Order if circumstances permit. The proposed Track Two scheduling order provides that DAP cases filed
after the date on which it is entered will be subject to a separate scheduling order, or they may be included in the
Track Two DAP scheduling order if circumstances permit.
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 4
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

schedule is entered, thus potentially requiring a track three, that is not a reason to separate the

2

Track Two DAPs into three separate tracks, as defendants desire. The Track Two DAP cases are

3

pending in this Court and capable of proceeding on the proposed schedule. Depending on when,

4
if ever, additional DAP cases are brought, they may be folded into the Track Two DAP schedule.
5
6

Even if they cannot be included in the Track Two DAP schedule, the existing Track Two DAP

7

cases should be not separated into tracks extending well into 2014 or into 2015 based on the

8

belief that later-filed cases will necessitate a third track.

9

The Track Two DAPs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and enter the

10

proposed Order Re: Pretrial and Trial Schedule for Track Two Direct Action Cases. We request

11

that the Court set these cases on the trial calendar at the earliest date following the proposed

12
13

deadline of November 1, 2013 for hearing dispositive motions.

14
15

Dated: June 5, 2012

16

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
By: /s/ Kenneth S. Marks________________

17

Kenneth S. Marks
Johnny W. Carter
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

18
19
20
21

Parker C. Folse III
Rachel S. Black
Jordan Connors
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

22
23
24
25
26

Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfred H. Siegel, as
Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Liquidating Trust

27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 5
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
2
By: /s/ James B. Baldinger______________

3

James B. Baldinger
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
CityPlace Tower
525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

Attorney for Plaintiff Tracfone Wireless,
Inc.

9
10

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

11

By: /s/ Marc Seltzer____________________

12

Marc Seltzer
Steven Sklaver
Ryan Kirkpatrick
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff SB Liquidation
Trust

18
19
20

BRYAN CAVE LLP

21

By: /s/ Richard Mooney________________

22

Richard Mooney
BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 Mission Street
25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

23
24
25
26

Attorney for Plaintiff Sony Electronics,
Inc. in 3:10-cv-5616-SI

27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 6
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP

2

By: /s/ Philip Iovieno__________________

3

Philip Iovieno
Ann Nardacci
BOIES, SCHILLER, & FLEXNER,
LLP
10 N. Pearl Street, 4th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

William Isaacson
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER,
LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff MetroPCS Wireless
Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Eletrograph
Systems, Inc., Interbond Corp. of
America, Schultze Agency Services, LLC,
on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and
Tweeter Newco, LLC, ABC Appliance,
Inc., Marta Cooperative of America, Inc.,
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp.,
Tech Data Corp., The AASI Creditor
Liquidating Trust, CompuCom Systems,
Inc. and NECO Alliance, LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 7
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

CROWELL & MORING LLP

2

By: /s/ Jason Murray___________________

3

Jason Murray
Joshua Stokes
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5
6
7

Nathanial Wood
CROWELL & MORNING LLP
275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jaco Electronics,
Inc., Viewsonic Corp., and Rockwell
Automation, Inc.

12
13
14

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

15

By: /s/ Parker Folse, III_________________

16

Parker Folse, III
Brooke Taylor
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17
18
19
20

Attorneys Plaintiff for T-Mobile USA,
Inc.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 8
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

BARLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR &
SCOTT

2

By: /s/ Lester Houtz

3

Lester Houtz
Karma Giulianelli
BARLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

Mark Ferguson
BARLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT
54 West Hubbard Street
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard
Co.

14
15
16

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
LLP

17

By: /s/ David M. Goldstein______________

18

David M. Goldstein
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

19
20
21
22

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sony Electronics,
Inc. in 3:12-cv-1599-SI and 3:12-cv2214-SI

23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order - 9
2290988v1/011997

MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 5th day of June, 2012, that a copy of the foregoing was

4

filed electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system, with notice of case activity

5

automatically generated and sent electronically to all parties.

6
/s/ Kenneth S. Marks
Kenneth S. Marks (pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10
2290988v1/011997