Rockwell Automation Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 29

STIPULATION AND ORDER re (28 in 3:12-cv-02495-SI) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and [Proposed Order] Regarding Extension of Time to Answer Complaint and Pleading Ruling filed by NEC LCD Technologies LTD, Renesas Electronics A merica, NEC Corporation, (6584 in 3:07-md-01827-SI) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re (6444) Amended Complaint, (Rockwell) Joint Stipulation and [Proposed Order] Regarding Extension of Time to Answer Complaint and Pleading Ruling filed by Renesas Electronics America, NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., NEC Corporation. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on August 31, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2012)

1 GEORGE D. NIESPOLO (SBN 72107)
STEPHEN H. SUTRO (SBN 172168)
2 JENNIFER BRIGGS FISHER (SBN 241321)
JOSEPH P. AUDAL (SBN 283010)
3 DUANE MORRIS LLP
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2200
4 San Francisco, CA 94105-1104
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: 415.957.3001
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
6
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
7
8 Attorneys for Defendants
NEC CORPORATION, NEC LCD TECHNOLOGIES,
9 LTD., AND RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA
10 [additional parties and counsel listed in signature block]
11
12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15 IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
16
__________________________________________
17
This Document Relates to Individual Case No. 3:1218 cv-2495 SI
19 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,

20
21

vs.

Case No.: M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827
Case No. 3:12-cv-02495 SI
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT AND PLEADING
RULING
The Honorable Susan Illston, Presiding

22 AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
23

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

1

Plaintiff Rockwell Automation, Inc. (“Rockwell”) and Defendants1 (collectively, the

2 “Stipulating Parties”) hereby stipulate as follows:
3

WHEREAS, Rockwell filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants on August 10,

4 2012 (the “Complaint”);
5

WHEREAS Rockwell has not asserted indirect purchaser claims under the Sherman Act;

6

WHEREAS Rockwell’s claims under Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01 et seq. (the "Wisconsin

7 Antitrust Law") apply only to purchases made by Rockwell in Wisconsin;
8

WHEREAS the Court has already considered several of Defendants’ motions to dismiss

9 based on “group pleading” and issued rulings denying such arguments, including its Order Granting
10 in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff’s Second
11 Amended Consolidated Complaint (MDL Docket No. 870) (“Group Pleading Order”);
12

WHEREAS the Court already has considered and determined that allegations similar to those

13 alleged by Rockwell against Defendants NEC Corporation, NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., and
14 Renesas NEC Electronics America (collectively “the NEC Defendants”) are “plausible” under the
15 pleading standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court under Bell Atlantic Corporation v.
16 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), including in its Order
17 Granting in Part NEC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, MDL Docket No. 4591 (“NEC Twombly
18 Order”);
19

WHEREAS Defendants do not agree with the Court’s ruling in the Group Pleading Order

20 and the NEC Defendants do not agree with the Court’s ruling in the NEC Twombly Order;
21
22
1
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, INC.; CHI
23 MEI CORPORATION; CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION; CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS
USA, INC.; CMO JAPAN CO. LTD.; NEXGEN MEDIATECH, INC.; NEXGEN MEDIATECH
24 USA, INC.; CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD.; EPSON IMAGING DEVICES
CORPORATION; EPSON ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; HANNSTAR DISPLAY
25 CORPORATION; LG DISPLAY CO. LTD.; LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.; NEC
CORPORATION; NEC LCD TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.; RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA;
26 SHARP CORPORATION; SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS, INC.; TOSHIBA
27 MOBILE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC.
28

-1CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

1

WHEREAS for appellate purposes, Defendants wish to preserve the pleading issues raised in

2 the Group Pleading Order and the NEC Twombly Order as to Rockwell;
3

WHEREAS the Stipulating Parties believe that the briefing necessary to address the group

4 pleading issue and the plausibility of allegations against the NEC Defendants would be substantially
5 identical to the briefing already filed in the MDL, and that further briefing on these issue would only
6 burden the parties and the Court;
7

WHEREAS the Stipulating Parties desire to litigate this case efficiently and are cognizant of

8 the Court’s admonitions that the parties should not burden the Court with unnecessary and/or
9 duplicative briefing, as demonstrated in the Court’s Order that the parties identify prior Orders
10 where similar or identical legal issues have been previously raised (MDL Docket No. 5429);
11

WHEREAS the Stipulating Parties believe that instead of re-litigating the group pleading

12 issue and the plausibility of allegations against the NEC Defendants, it is more efficient for the
13 Stipulating Parties to agree, and the Court to order that: the previous motions for dismissal based on
14 group pleading and the plausibility of allegations against the NEC Defendants be deemed filed as to
15 Rockwell; both the Group Pleading Order and the NEC Twombly Order be deemed issued in this
16 case; and these issues be preserved for appeal as if having been decided in this case without further
17 action by any Stipulating Party;
18

WHEREAS the current deadline for Defendants to respond to Rockwell’s Complaint is

19 August 31, 2012;
20

WHEREAS, Defendants desire a reasonable amount of time to respond to the Complaint;

21

WHEREAS the Court has already approved similar stipulations in AASI Liquidating Trust v.

22 AU Optronics Corp., et al (Case No. 3:11-cv-5781-SI) on May 22, 2012 (MDL Dkt. 5772) and in
23 NECO Alliance, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al., (Case No. 3:12-cv-01426-SI) on August 3,
24 2012 (MDL Dkt. 6408);
25

THEREFORE, the Stipulating Parties stipulate and agree as follows:

26

For the avoidance of doubt, the Stipulating Parties agree that Rockwell has not asserted

27 indirect purchaser claims under the Sherman Act and that Rockwell’s claims under the Wisconsin
28 Antitrust Law apply only to purchases made by Rockwell in Wisconsin;
-2CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

1

Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss IPPs’ Second Amended Complaint (MDL Docket No.

2 782) and corresponding Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
3 Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff’s Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (MDL Docket No. 870), to
4 the extent they relate to Defendants’ group pleading argument, shall be deemed filed and entered by
5 the Court as applicable to Rockwell and its claims, and Defendants and their defenses in this case.
6 Such an order denying dismissal on the grounds of group pleading is preserved for appeal without
7 further action by any Stipulating Party as if it had been decided and issued in the present case
8 provided, however, that any appellate review of Rockwell’s Complaint in respect to the group
9 pleading issue shall be based on the allegations of Rockwell’s Complaint;
10

The NEC Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss (MDL Docket No. 3452) and

11 corresponding Order Granting in Part NEC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (MDL Docket No.
12 4591), to the extent they relate to the plausibility of allegations against the NEC Defendants, shall be
13 deemed filed and entered by the Court as applicable to Rockwell and its claims, and the NEC
14 Defendants and their defenses in this case. Such an order denying dismissal on the grounds of the
15 plausibility of allegations against the NEC Defendants is preserved for appeal without further action
16 by any Stipulating Party as if it had been decided and issued in the present case provided, however,
17 that any appellate review of Rockwell’s Complaint in respect to the plausibility of allegations against
18 NEC Defendants issue shall be based on the allegations of Rockwell’s Complaint;
19

The deadline for Defendants to answer Rockwell’s Complaint is September 14, 2012.

20 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

DUANE MORRIS LLP
STEPHEN H. SUTRO (SBN 172168)
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

/s/
Stephen H. Sutro
Attorneys for Defendants NEC CORPORATION, NEC LCD
TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., AND RENESAS ELECTRONICS
AMERICA

28
-3CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NOSSAMAN LLP
CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (SBN 81297)
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

/s/
Christopher A. Nedeau

Attorneys for Defendants AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION
and AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, INC.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
JAMES G. KREISSMAN (SBN 206740)
HARRISON J. FRAHN IV (SBN 206822)
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

15
16
17
18

/s/
Harrison J. Frahn IV

Attorneys for Defendants CHI MEI CORPORATION,
CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, CHI MEI
OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC., CMO JAPAN CO., LTD.,
NEXGEN MEDIATECH, INC., AND NEXGEN
MEDIATECH USA, INC.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MELVIN R. GOLDMAN
STEPHEN P. FRECCERO
DEREK F. FORAN
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

/s/
Stephen P. Freccero

Attorneys for Defendants EPSON IMAGING DEVICES
CORPORATION AND EPSON ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC.
-4CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

PAUL HASTINGS LLP
HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045)
KEVIN C. MC CANN (SBN 120874)
LEE BERGER (SBN 222756)
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

/s/
Lee Berger

Attorneys for Defendants LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. and LG
DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
JOHN M. GRENFELL (SBN 88500)
JACOB R. SORENSEN (SBN 209134)
FUSAE NARA (pro hac vice)
ANDREW D. LANPHERE (SBN 191479)
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
By:

16
17

/s/
Jacob R. Sorensen

Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION and
SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

18
19
20
21
22
23

WHITE & CASE LLP
CHRISTOPHER M. CURRAN (pro hac vice)
MARTIN M. TOTO (pro hac vice)
JOHN H. CHUNG (pro hac vice)
KRISTEN J. MCAHREN (pro hac vice)
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/
John H. Chung

Attorneys for Defendants TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
TOSHIBA MOBILE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
COMPONENTS, INC., AND TOSHIBA
AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
-5CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
RACHEL S. BRASS (SBN 219301)
JOEL S. SANDERS (SBN 107234)
AUSTIN V. SCHWING (SBN 211696)
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

/s/
Rachel S. Brass

Attorneys for Defendant CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES
LTD.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN, LLP
ROBERT E. FREITAS
JASON S. ANGELL
JERRY CHEN
100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By:

16
17

/s/
Robert E. Freitas

Attorneys for Defendant HANNSTAR DISPLAY
CORPORATION

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

CROWELL & MORING LLP
NATHANIAL J. WOOD
515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
By:

/s/
Nathanial J. Wood

Attorneys for Plaintiff ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.
ATTESTATION: Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence

27 in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories thereto.
28
-6CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 31
3 Dated: _______________, 2012.
4
5
6

_________________________________________
Honorable Susan Illston
U.S. District Court Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7CASE NO.: M 07-1827 SI; 3:12-CV-02495 SI
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]