State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. et al

Filing 23

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/10/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

13
This document relates to:
14
15

MDL No. 2143

STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

16
Plaintiff,
17

v.

18

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSES TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES, CIVIL PENALTIES,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC., et al.

19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

1

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013, this Court entered the Joint Stipulation and Order

2

Regarding Service of Process (see Dkt. No. 1019), which set deadlines for Defendants to file their

3

responses to the Amended Complaint for Damages, Civil Penalties, Injunctive Relief filed by the

4

State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs (“Florida

5

Complaint”);

6

WHEREAS, the deadlines set forth in the above-referenced Order provide for two

7

different response dates for the various Defendants—January 13, 2014 for certain Defendants, and

8

the later of January 13, 2014 or 90 days from receipt of the Florida Complaint delivered in the

9

manner stipulated, for other Defendants;

10

WHEREAS, the parties agree that a single date for all Defendants to respond to the

11

Florida Complaint promotes efficiency and, thus, is preferable, and have agreed that Defendants

12

should have until January 24, 2014 to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Florida

13

Complaint;

14

WHEREAS, to the extent any Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss the Florida

15

Complaint on that date, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or otherwise, the parties propose

16

that Florida shall have until February 21, 2014 to file a response to any such motions and the

17

moving Defendants shall have until March 3, 2014 to file any replies in support of such motions.

18

WHEREAS, to the extent any Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss, in whole or in

19

part, the Florida Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or otherwise on

20

January 24, 2014, the undersigned parties agree that those moving Defendants shall not be

21

required to file an answer to the Florida Complaint, if at all, until after the Court rules on any such

22

motion. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith and submit to the court a schedule for any

23

such moving Defendants to file an answer, if necessary.

24

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned

25

counsel for the parties, and subject to Court approval, that all Defendants shall have until Friday,

26

January 24, 2014 to file their responses to the Florida Complaint. To the extent any Defendant or

27

Defendants move to dismiss that Complaint, in whole or in part, on that date, (i) Florida shall

28

have until February 21, 2014 to file a response to any such motions, and Defendants shall have
1

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

1

until March 3, 2014 to file any replies in support of such motions; (ii) those moving Defendants

2

shall not be required to file an answer to the Florida Complaint, if at all, until after the Court rules

3

on any such motion; and (iii) the parties shall work in good faith to agree upon and submit to the

4

court a schedule for any such moving Defendants to file an answer, if necessary.

5
6
7

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: January 9, 2014

STATE OF FLORIDA

8
By

9
10

/s/ Lizabeth A. Brady
LIZABETH A. BRADY

13

Office of the Attorney General
State of Florida
PL-01, The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs State of Florida

11
12

15
16

DATED: January 9, 2014

17

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
By

18

/s/ Belinda S Lee
BELINDA S LEE

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

19
20
21

Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Samsung Storage
Technology Korea Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage
Technology Corp., and Toshiba Corp.

22
23
24
DATED: January 9, 2014

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

25
26
27
28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

By

/s/ Robert B. Pringle
ROBERT B. PRINGLE

101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Telephone: [phone]
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

1

Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

2
Attorneys for Defendant NEC Corporation
3
4

DATED: January 9, 2014

5

ROPES & GRAY LLP
By

/s/ Mark S. Popofksy
MARK S. POPOFSKY

6

One Metro Center
700 12th Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-3948
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi-LG Data Storage,
Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.

11
12
13

DATED: January 9, 2014

14

BAKER BOTTS LLP
By

/s/ Evan Werbel
EVAN WERBEL

15

1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

16
17
18

Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Philips & Lite-On
Digital Solutions Corp., and Philips & Lite-On
Digital Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

19
20
21
DATED: January 9, 2014

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By

/s/ Lisa M. Kaas
LISA M. KAAS

1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
kaasl @dicksteinshapiro.com
Attorneys for Defendants BenQ Corporation and
3

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

1

BenQ America Corp.

2
3

DATED: January 9, 2014

4

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By

/s/ Ian Simmons
IAN SIMMONS

5

1625 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd.

10
11
12

DATED: January 9, 2014

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By

13

/s/ John F. Cove, Jr.
JOHN F. COVE, JR.

14
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18

Attorneys for Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony
Optiarc America, Inc., and Sony Optiarc Inc.

19
20

DATED: January 9, 2014

VINSON & ELKINS LLP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By

/s/ Craig P. Seebald
CRAIG P. SEEBALD

2200 Pennyslvania Ave. NW
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20037-1701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Hitachi, Ltd.

28
4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

1

DATED: January 9, 2014

2

DLA PIPER LLP
By

/s/ Deanna L. Cairo
DEANA L. CAIRO

3

500 8th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendant TEAC Corporation and
TEAC America Inc.

8
9

DATED: January 9, 2014

EIMER STAHL LLP

10
By

/s/ Nathan P. Eimer
NATHAN P. EIMER

11
12

224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.

16
17
18

DATED: January 9, 2014

JONES DAY
By

/s/ Eric P. Enson
ERIC P. ENSON

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Pioneer Electronics (USA)
Inc., Pioneer North America, Inc., Pioneer
Corporation, and Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan
Co., LTD.

26
27
28
5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS

1

DATED: January 9, 2014

2

WINTSON & STRAWN LLP
By

/s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler
JEFFREY L. KESSLER

3

200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendant Panasonic Corporation
and Panasonic Corporation of North America

8
9

DATED: January 9, 2014

NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE & QUIGG LLP

10
By

/s/ Keith A. Walter Jr.
KEITH A. WALTER JR.

11
12

1007 North Orange Street Ninth Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendant Quanta Storage Inc. and
Quanta Storage America Inc.

16
17

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

DATED: 1/10/14
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21

NY\6126835

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
Defendants’ Responses to Florida’s Complaint
MDL No. 2143; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1877-RS