Fenerjian v. Nong Shim Company, Ltd et al

Filing 429

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON SANCTIONS MOTIONS - Deadlines reset as to 416 MOTION for Sanctions and 420 MOTION for Sanctions. Responses due by 9/28/2016. Replies due by 10/5/2016. Motion Hearings set for 10/19/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/20/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2016)

1
2

[SUBMITTING COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE
PAGE]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE KOREAN RAMEN ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Case No. 3:13-cv-04115-WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE ON SANCTIONS MOTIONS

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
STIPULATION AND ORDER

30
31

STIPULATION

1
2

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (together, “Plaintiffs”),

3

and Defendants Ottogi America, Inc., Ottogi Company Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc., and Nongshim

4

Co. Ltd. (together, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

5
6

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2016 Plaintiffs filed motions for sanctions (Dkt. 416 and Dkt.
420) against the Defendants (collectively the “Motions”);

7

WHEREAS, the Motions were not filed 35 days before their noticed hearing date;

8

WHEREAS, Defendants requested some additional time to prepare their Oppositions due to

9
10
11

various scheduling issues, including a multi-day Korean national holiday as well as the need to obtain
declarations of witnesses in Korea including under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 as to Korean law;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs thereafter made a request to Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

12

43 (c), to make any such declarants available for cross-examination by counsel and the Court at the

13

time of the hearing on the Motions so that the Court can properly judge the veracity of the witnesses;

14

WHEREAS, Defendants have represented that such an examination will be unnecessary

15

and/or inappropriate because, inter alia, the declarants have already been deposed and/or would be

16

providing declaration(s) on Korean law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1;

17

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs wish to accommodate Defendants’ request for additional time to

18

prepare their Oppositions and, in light of Defendants’ various representations, Plaintiffs are presently

19

not sure what Defendants’ factual proffer will be and, thus, are willing to reserve further

20

consideration on the question of whether live testimony is warranted until such time as they have an

21

opportunity to review the Oppositions to the Motions;

22

WHEREAS, the parties recognize that if a dispute arises about the appropriateness of

23

Plaintiffs calling live witnesses at the hearing on the Motions, if they decide to do so after reviewing

24

the Oppositions, there will be a very short window to resolve it, and to either arrange for travel in the

25

event that live testimony is determined by the Court to be required or to schedule a further hearing

26

date at a time when anyone whose presence the Court so determines is warranted can travel from

27

Korea; and

28
1
29
STIPULATION AND ORDER

30
31

1
2

WHEREAS, the parties have continued to meet and confer since September 8, 2016 about a
schedule for briefing and hearing on the Motions;

3

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate as follows:

4

1.

Defendants shall file their Oppositions to the Motions on September 28, 2016.

5

2.

Plaintiffs shall file their Replies to Defendants’ Oppositions to the Motions on October

6

5, 2016.

7

3.

8

such rescheduling (if any) as the Court may make following further application (if any) of the

9

Plaintiffs regarding the question of whether or not any witnesses must appear.

The hearing on the Motions shall be held on October 19, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., subject to

10

4.

In the event that the parties have a dispute about the attendance of witnesses at the

11

hearing on the Motions following service of the Oppositions to the Motions, they shall bring it

12

to the Court’s attention in a joint letter brief as soon as possible thereafter.

13

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14

DATED: September 15, 2016

15

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

/s/ Joel S. Sanders

16
Joel S. Sanders
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

17
18
19
20

Attorneys for Defendants Ottogi America, Inc. and
Ottogi Company, Ltd.

21
22
23

DATED: September 15, 2016

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
By:

/s/ Mark C. Dosker

24
25
26
27

Mark C. Dosker
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

28
2
29
STIPULATION AND ORDER

30
31

Attorneys for Defendants Nongshim America, Inc. and
Nongshim Co. Ltd.

1
2
3

DATED: September 15, 2016

4

By:

5

/s/ Alan R. Plutzik

Alan R. Plutzik
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6
7
8
9

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs

10
11

BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER,
LLP

DATED: September 15, 2016

HAUSFELD LLP

12
13
/s/ Christopher L. Lebsock
Christopher L. Lebsock
44 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
TEL: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs

14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER

20
21

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

DATED: September 20, 2016

____________________________________

24

The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3
29

STIPULATION AND ORDER

30
31