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

Filing 27

MOTION Motion by T-Mobile USA, Inc. for Order Authorizing Plaintiff to Serve Defendants Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. and Tatung Company Through Their U.S. Counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) filed by T-Mobile USA Inc. Motion Hearing set for 8/12/2011 09:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 7/15/2011. Replies due by 7/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Brooke Taylor, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order)(Taylor, Brooke) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 David Orozco (220732) SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, California 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 Email: dorozco@susmangodfrey.com Edward A. Friedman (pro hac vice) Daniel B. Rapport (pro hac vice) Hallie B. Levin (pro hac vice) FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6516 Telephone: (212) 833-1100 Facsimile: (212) 833-1250 Email: efriedman@fklaw.com drapport@fklaw.com hlevin@fklaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. (See Signature Page for Names and Addresses of Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: T-MOBILE U.S.A., I.N.C., Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL. Defendants. Master Docket No. C M:07-01827 SI Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI MOTION BY T-MOBILE USA, INC. FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANTS CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH THEIR U.S. COUNSEL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f)(3) [Declaration of Brooke A. M. Taylor and [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith] Date: August 12, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Ct. Room: No. 10 Honorable Susan Illston 28 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 3 II. FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 1 III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2 4 5 A. 8 9 10 IV. SERVING THE FOREIGN DEFENDANTS THROUGH THEIR UNITED STATES COUNSEL WILL SATISFY DUE PROCESS. ................................................................................... 5 C. 7 LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................... 2 B. 6 ALLOWING T-MOBILE TO SERVE THE FOREIGN DEFENDANTS THROUGH THEIR UNITED STATES COUNSEL WILL FACILITATE TIMELY DISCOVERY, SAVE COSTS, AND PREVENT FURTHER DELAY IN THIS ACTION...................................................... 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA AND TATUNG THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. AU Optronics, et al., Case No. C 3:09-04997 SI ............................................................................................................... 5 ATS Claim, LLC v. Epson Elecs. Am., Inc., et al., Case No. C 09-1115 SI .................................................................................................................... 5 In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-5944, 2008 U.D. Dist. LEXIS 111384 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)........................................ 6 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Master Docket No. C M:07-01827 SI.............................................................................................. 5 Mullaine v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) ................................................................................................................. 4 Nokia Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. C 09-5609 SI ................................................................................................................... 5 Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002)................................................................................................ 4 TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. C 10-03205 SI .................................................................................................................. 6 OTHER AUTHORITIES Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Preparation of Letters Rogatory, http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial _680.html.............................................................. 4 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Status Table, available at http://hcch.e-vision .nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=17 .......................................... 3 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Taiwan Judicial Assistance, http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_669.html............................................................... 3 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) ........................................................................................................................... 4 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA AND TATUNG THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 2 3 4 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 12, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, if the Court orders oral argument upon this Motion, in the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 10, San Francisco, California, Plaintiff, TMobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), will move this Court for an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), authorizing Plaintiff to serve the following foreign defendants, via United 7 States Mail through their respective U.S. counsel, with a summons, the Complaint, and the 8 Supplementary Material enumerated in Civil Local Rule 4-2: (i) Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. 9 (“Chunghwa”) and (ii) Tatung Company (“Tatung”) (collectively the “Foreign Defendants”). 10 11 This Motion is made on the grounds that Defendants Chunghwa and Tatung (1) have been participating in the above-captioned Multi-District Litigation since 2009 and 2008 respectively, (2) have secured counsel in the United States who have made multiple appearances for 12 Defendants, (3) have been served by other Plaintiffs in this litigation through their counsel 13 pursuant to Court orders, and (4) have nevertheless refused to waive service of T-Mobile’s 14 complaint in this action. This Motion is further made on the grounds that the time-consuming and 15 expensive nature of service of process by execution of a letter rogatory necessitates the Court’s 16 directing service of process by an alternative means and that service of process by delivering a 17 18 summons and the Complaint to the Foreign Defendants’ counsel in the United States is permissible under Ninth Circuit case law. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and 19 Authorities, the supporting Declaration of Brooke A. M. Taylor, the pleadings, records, and 20 papers already on file in this action and those filed herein, and such other evidence and oral 21 argument as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 2 Dated: July 1, 2011 SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 3 4 By: 5 6 7 8 9 /s/ Brooke A.M. Taylor David Orozco (220732) SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, California 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 Email: dorozco@susmangodfrey.com Parker C. Folse III (pro hac vice) Brooke A. M. Taylor (pro hac vice) SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 Email: pfolse@susmangodfrey.com btaylor@susmangodfrey.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 Edward A. Friedman (pro hac vice) Daniel B. Rapport (pro hac vice) Hallie B. Levin (pro hac vice) FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6516 Telephone: (212) 833-1100 Facsimile: (212) 833-1250 Email: efriedman@fklaw.com drapport@fklaw.com hlevin@fklaw.com 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. 24 25 26 27 28 2 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 2 3 4 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This Court has discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to authorize alternative service of process on foreign defendants so long as the means chosen comports with due process and complies with international law. Indeed, this Court has already recognized that alternative service of process on certain Defendants—including the two at issue 6 here—is appropriate in the multidistrict litigation proceeding pending before the Court and 7 captioned In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:07-CV-1827-SI (the “MDL”), into 8 which T-Mobile’s direct action was automatically transferred for pretrial proceedings. Because 9 of the substantial difficulty, time, and expense that T-Mobile would face in serving the Foreign 10 11 12 13 Defendants in Taiwan, and because the Foreign Defendants have had notice of and have participated in the MDL, the Court should grant T-Mobile’s request for such alternative service and permit T-Mobile to serve its Complaint on the Foreign Defendants via first class mail to their attorneys in the United States. In support of its Motion, T-Mobile states the following. II. FACTS 14 On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff T-Mobile filed a Complaint for Damages in the Western 15 District of Washington naming multiple defendants, including the Foreign Defendants, in an 16 action alleging violations of Federal and State antitrust laws. (Declaration of Brooke A. M. 17 18 Taylor (the “Taylor Declaration”) ¶ 3.) On May 31, 2011, T-Mobile’s individual action was transferred to this Court pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (Id.) 19 In an effort to serve all defendants, including Chunghwa and Tatung, in a timely and cost- 20 effective manner, in April 2011, T-Mobile requested that all defendants waive service of a 21 summons and the Complaint. Almost all of the defendants agreed to do so, but Chunghwa and 22 Tatung and did not. A Stipulation to this effect was filed with the Court and entered on June 23, 23 24 2011. (Dkt. 25). In response to Plaintiff’s request that Chunghwa and Tatung waive service of a summons and the Complaint, on or about, May 26, 2011, Tatung and Chunghwa’s U.S. counsel indicated in a phone call that it is not authorized to accept service of the complaint on behalf of 25 Foreign Defendants. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 4) Both of the Foreign Defendants have admitted in answers 26 filed in this MDL that they are foreign corporations with headquarters in Taiwan. See Answer of 27 Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. to ATS Claim, LLC’s First Amended Complaint ¶ 39 1 28 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 [MDL Docket No. 1483] (Chunghwa); Answer of Defendant Tatung Company to Nokia 2 Corporation and Nokia Inc.’s First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief ¶ 43 3 [MDL Docket No. 2553] (Tatung). Both of the Foreign Defendants have also appeared and 4 5 participated in this MDL through United States counsel. (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 5-6). Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (“Gibson Dunn”) first appeared in the MDL on behalf of Chunghwa on January 9, 2009, and has since answered complaints, provided declarations, petitioned the Court for an 6 extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to complaints, joined defendants’ original 7 motion in opposition to ATS Claims, Inc.’s Motion to Serve Defendants through United States 8 counsel, and participated in class settlement discussions on Chunghwa’s behalf. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 9 5). The law firm of Baker & McKenzie LLP (“Baker”) began representing Tatung America in the 10 11 MDL on January 11, 2008, and has appeared as counsel for Tatung America in one of the individual actions comprising the MDL. Tatung America is the United States subsidiary of Tatung, and Baker represents both entities. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 6). Baker has submitted motions to 12 dismiss, provided declarations, answered complaints, joined motions opposing class certification, 13 and attended depositions on behalf of Tatung America. (Id.) Baker represents both Foreign 14 Defendants in the instant case. By virtue of the Foreign Defendants’ and their counsels’ 15 substantive involvement in the MDL, it is clear that the Foreign Defendants have had notice of T- 16 Mobile’s action against them. 17 18 III. ARGUMENT T-Mobile should be allowed to serve the Foreign Defendants through their United States Counsel under Rule 4(f)(3). The Foreign Defendants are on notice of this litigation, as evidenced 19 by the fact that they have participated substantively in this litigation through counsel after having 20 been served by other plaintiffs in this action through counsel pursuant to this Court’s orders. At 21 this point in this case, there is no reason for T-Mobile to waste the time and money going through 22 the complicated letters rogatory process to served the Foreign Defendants with notice of a lawsuit 23 24 25 in which they are already participating. Serving the Foreign Defendant through their United States counsel comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process. A. Legal Standard As this Court is already aware, Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the 26 27 28 2 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.1 Furthermore, Taiwan is not a party to 2 any other international agreements with the United States relating to service of process.2 In the 3 absence of an alternate method of effecting service, the primary method of effecting service of 4 5 6 process in Taiwan is pursuant to a response to a letter rogatory, which can be a protracted and time consuming exercise.3 However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the Court to order an alternative method of service to avoid the cost and long delays of the letters rogatory process. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides in relevant part: 7 Unless federal law provides otherwise, [a defendant] . . . may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States: 8 (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; 9 10 (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice: 11 12 13 (A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction; 14 (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or 15 16 (C) 17 unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law, by: (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally, or 18 19 20 (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the [defendant] and that requires a signed receipt; or 21 (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court 22 1 23 24 See Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Status Table, available at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=17. (Taylor Decl. Exh. A) 2 25 26 See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Taiwan Judicial Assistance, http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_669.html (last visited June 19, 2011) (noting that Taiwanese law – and not any international agreements – governs service of process in Taiwan). (Taylor Decl. Exh. B) 3 27 28 Id. 3 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 2 orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) (emphasis added). 3 Because, as noted above, Chunghwa is a foreign corporation located principally in 4 Taiwan, and because no international agreement exists between Taiwan and the United States 5 governing service of process, Plaintiff cannot serve Chunghwa under Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 4(f)(1). The letters rogatory process in Rule 4(f)(2) is a long and drawn out process. 7 In fact, this Court has already recognized that an attempt to effect service of process in Taiwan 8 9 pursuant to a letter rogatory required nearly seven months’ time. (Order Regarding Defendant Nexgen Mediatech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process; Quashing Service, and Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Nexgen Through Its Counsel 10 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) entered on November 19, 2008 in the LCD Flat Panel MDL 11 Proceeding [Docket No. 725], at 4). The U.S. Department of State has likewise observed that the 12 process of executing a letter rogatory may require one or more years.4 In lieu of the letters rogatory process, Rule 4(f)(3) authorizes the Court to allow service 13 14 15 of process through “other means not prohibited by international agreement.” Authorizing an alternative means of service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) is “commit[ted] to the sound discretion of the district court.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 16 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). The alternative method of service, however, (1) must not 17 be prohibited by international agreement, and (2) must “comport with constitutional notions of 18 due process.” Id. 19 To comport with constitutional notions of due process, the method of service “must be 20 ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency 21 22 of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. at 1016-17 (quoting Mullaine v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that service by delivering a summons and the complaint to 23 a defendant foreign corporation’s domestic counsel located in the United States is reasonably 24 calculated to apprise the defendant of the pendency of the action and, therefore, comports with 25 constitutional notions of due process where the defendant’s United States counsel is in contact 26 4 27 28 See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Preparation of Letters Rogatory, http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_683.html (last visited June 19, 2011). (Taylor Decl. Exh. C) 4 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 with the defendant, and the defendant’s United States counsel knows of the defendant’s legal 2 positions. Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1017. Plaintiff’s proposed method of service meets the 3 requirements of Rule 4 and due process. 4 5 B. Serving the Foreign Defendants Through Their United States Counsel Will Satisfy Due Process. Both of the Foreign Defendants have been participating actively in this MDL through their 6 United States counsel. Since January 2009, Gibson Dunn has repeatedly appeared as counsel for 7 Chunghwa in the LCD Flat Panel MDL Proceeding. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 5). Baker has been 8 appearing for Tatung America, Tatung’s United States subsidiary, since January 2008, and now 9 represents Tatung. (Id. ¶ 6) Having substantively participated in MDL 1827 on behalf of the 10 11 Foreign Defendants for many months, the United States counsel of the Foreign Defendants have essentially represented to this Court that they are in regular contract with the Foreign Defendants and are familiar with their legal positions in the LCD Flat Panel MDL Proceeding and related 12 actions. Thus, under Ninth Circuit case law, service by delivering a summons, the Complaint, 13 and the Supplementary Material to United States counsel for the Foreign Defendants is 14 reasonably calculated, under the circumstances of this action, to apprise the Foreign Defendants 15 of the pendency of the action and, accordingly, comports with constitutional notions of due 16 process. 17 18 Furthermore, this Court has already authorized service of process on Taiwanese companies, including both Chunghwa and Tatung, through their domestic counsel in this action. See, e.g., In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Master Docket No. C M:07-01827 SI, 19 Order Regarding Defendant Nexgen Mediatech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service 20 of Process; Quashing Service; and Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Nexgen 21 Through Its Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) [Docket No. 725]; ATS Claim, LLC v. Epson 22 Elecs. Am., Inc., et al., Individual Case No. C 09-1115 SI, Order Granting Defendants’ Motions 23 24 to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, with Leave to Properly Serve Domestic Defendants and to Amend the Complaint; and Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Certain Taiwanese Defendants [Individual Docket No. 70]; AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. AU Optronics, et al., Individual Case 25 No. C 3:09-04997 SI, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Chunghwa Picture Tubes 26 Through its U.S. Counsel [Individual Docket No. 42]; Nokia Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 27 Individual Case No. C 09-5609 SI, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendants 5 28 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 Chunghwa Picture Tubes and Tatung Company Through Their U.S. Counsel [Individual Docket 2 No. 32]; TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Individual Case No. C 10-03205 3 SI, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes Through its 4 5 U.S. Counsel [Individual Docket No. 16]; see also, In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-5944, 2008 U.D. Dist. LEXIS 111384,at *31-32 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Because service of process by delivering a summons, the Complaint, and the 6 Supplementary Material to the Foreign Defendants’ United States Counsel is not prohibited by 7 international agreement and comports with constitutional notions of due process, this means of 8 service is permissible under Ninth Circuit case law. Accordingly—and in light of the time- 9 consuming and expensive nature of service of process by executing a letter rogatory—the Court 10 11 may and should direct Plaintiff to effect service of process upon The Foreign Defendants through their counsel in the United States. C. Allowing T-Mobile to Serve the Foreign Defendants Through Their United 12 States Counsel Will Facilitate Timely Discovery, Save Costs, and Prevent 13 Further Delay in This Action. 14 As the Court is aware, discovery is already moving forward in MDL 1827. Certain 15 depositions have already been taken and counsel are moving forward with additional discovery. 16 T-Mobile intends to coordinate its discovery with the class counsel and other Direct Action 17 18 Plaintiffs to facilitate orderly and timely discovery Coordinating that discovery will be considerably easier and more efficient the sooner the Foreign Defendants are served. Until they are served, T-Mobile cannot initiate discovery against the Foreign Defendants. Given the 19 protracted and expensive nature of effecting service of process in Taiwan, it could be 2012 before 20 the Foreign Defendants would even be required to answer the Complaint. Any witnesses deposed 21 by other plaintiffs in the meantime may need to be redeposed for non-duplicated but plaintiff 22 specific issues. The scope and complexity of the discovery and motion practice in this case 23 24 necessitate the Court’s intervention, and the Court should issue an order authorizing T-Mobile to serve the Foreign Defendants by delivering the requisite documents to their United States Counsel. 25 26 27 28 6 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, T-Mobile respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion 3 for an order authorizing T-Mobile to serve upon Defendants Chunghwa and Tatung a summons, 4 5 the Complaint, and the Supplementary Material set forth in Civil Local Rule 4-2 by delivering these documents to Chunghwa’s and Tatung’s domestic counsel in the United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). 6 7 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. Dated: July 1, 2011 8 By: 9 David Orozco (220732) SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, California 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 Email: dorozco@susmangodfrey.com 10 11 12 13 Parker C. Folse III (pro hac vice) Brooke A. M. Taylor (pro hac vice) SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 Email: pfolse@susmangodfrey.com btaylor@susmangodfrey.com 14 15 16 17 18 19 Edward A. Friedman (pro hac vice) Daniel B. Rapport (pro hac vice) Hallie B. Levin (pro hac vice) FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6516 Telephone: (212) 833-1100 Facsimile: (212) 833-1250 Email: efriedman@fklaw.com drapport@fklaw.com hlevin@fklaw.com 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Attorneys for Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. 27 28 /s/ Brooke A.M. Taylor 7 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of July, 2011, that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system, with notice of case activity automatically generated and sent electronically to all parties. /s/ Brooke A. M. Taylor Brooke A. M. Taylor 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD. AND TATUNG COMPANY THROUGH U.S. COUNSEL MASTER FILE NO.: M-07-1827-SI CASE NO. 3:11-02591 SI

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?