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)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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