Ingram Micro Inc et al v. LG Electronics Inc et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/24/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

Daniel A. Sasse (CSB No. 236234)
[e-mail]
CROWELL & MORING LLP
3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ingram Micro Inc. and Synnex Corporation

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL Docket No. 3:10-md-02143-RS-JCS

14

This document relates to:

Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-RS

15

Ingram Micro Inc. and Synnex Corporation,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF
PROCESS

12
13

Plaintiffs,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

v.

Judge Richard Seeborg

LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics USA,
Inc.; Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc.; HitachiLG Data Storage Korea, Inc.; Koninklijke
Philips N.V.; Lite-On IT Corporation of
Taiwan; BenQ Corporation; BenQ America
Corporation; Philips & Lite-On Digital
Solutions Corporation; Philips & Lite-On
Digital Solutions USA, Inc.; Toshiba
Corporation; Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc.; Sony Corporation; Sony
Electronics, Inc.; NEC Corporation; Sony NEC
Optiarc Inc.; Sony Optiarc Inc.; Sony Optiarc
America Inc.; Panasonic Corp.; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; TEAC
Corporation; TEAC America, Inc.; Quanta
Storage, Inc.; and Quanta Storage America,
Inc.,
Defendants.

28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS

1

STIPULATION

2

It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their respective attorneys, that:

3

1.

Undersigned counsel of EIMER STAHL LLP agree to accept service of the

4

Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-RS,

5

on behalf of Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively, the “LG

6

Electronics Defendants”). The LG Electronics Defendants shall have until Thursday, April 17,

7

2014, to file a response thereto.

8

2.

Undersigned counsel of ROPES & GRAY LLP agree to accept service of the

9

Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-RS,

10

on behalf of Defendants Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.

11

(collectively, the “HLDS Defendants”). The HLDS Defendants shall have until Thursday, April

12

17, 2014, to file a response thereto.

13

3.

Undersigned counsel of BAKER BOTTS LLP agree to accept service of the

14

Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-RS,

15

on behalf of Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”), Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan (“Lite-

16

On”), Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp. (“PLDS”), and Philips & Lite-On Digital

17

Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (“PLDS USA”) (collectively, the “Philips Defendants”). The Philips

18

Defendants shall have until Thursday, April 17, 2014, to file a response thereto.

19

4.

Undersigned counsel of DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP agree to accept service of

20

the Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-

21

RS, on behalf of Defendants BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp. (collectively, the

22

“BenQ Defendants”). The BenQ Defendants shall have until Thursday, April 17, 2014, to

23

answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond thereto.

24

5.

Undersigned counsel of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP agree to accept service of

25

the Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-

26

RS, on behalf of Defendants Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba Corp.”) and Toshiba America

27

Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”). Each of Toshiba Corp. and TAIS shall have until Thursday,

28

April 17, 2014, to file a response thereto.

C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS

1

6.

Undersigned counsel of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP agree to accept service of

2

the Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-

3

RS, on behalf of Defendant NEC Corporation (“NEC”). Defendant NEC shall have until

4

Thursday, April 17, 2014, to file a response thereto.

5

7.

Undersigned counsel of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP agree to accept

6

service of the Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-

7

cv-05372-RS, on behalf of Defendants Sony Optiarc America Inc. (“SOA”) and Sony Electronics,

8

Inc. (“SEI”). Defendants Sony Corporation and Sony Optiarc Inc. (“Sony Optiarc”) agree to

9

waive service of the Complaint, and Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc. and Synnex Corporation will

10

mail a copy of the Complaint to Sony Corporation and Sony Optiarc via certified mail or United

11

Parcel Service, addressed and delivered to a designated individual in the Sony Corporation Legal

12

Department in Japan. The deadline for Defendants SOA, SEI, Sony Corporation, and Sony

13

Optiarc (collectively, the “Sony/Optiarc Defendants”) to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise

14

respond to the Complaint shall be extended to Thursday, April 17, 2014.

15

8.

Undersigned counsel of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP agree to accept service of

16

the Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-

17

RS, on behalf of Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America

18

(collectively, the “Panasonic Defendants”). The Panasonic Defendants shall have until Thursday,

19

April 17, 2014, to file a response thereto.

20

9.

Undersigned counsel of KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP agree to accept

21

service of the Complaint in Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No.

22

3:13-cv-05372-RS, on behalf of Defendants TEAC Corporation and TEAC America Inc.

23

(collectively, the “TEAC Defendants”). The TEAC Defendants waive service of the Complaint

24

under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those TEAC Defendants who reside in

25

foreign countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention shall be deemed served as

26

provided for by that Convention by sending the Complaint to counsel. The TEAC Defendants

27

shall have until Thursday, April 17, 2014, to file a response thereto.

28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS

1

10.

This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Defendants of any defense,

2

including but not limited to those defenses provided under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure.

4

11.

To the extent any Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under

5

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or otherwise, the parties shall work in good

6

faith to reach an agreed-upon briefing schedule that they shall present to the Court no later than

7

Thursday, May 1, 2014, but in no event shall the response of Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc. and

8

Synnex Corporation to any such motion(s) be due before Monday, June 16, 2014.

9
10

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: January 17, 2014

CROWELL & MORING LLP

11

/s/ Daniel A. Sasse

12

Daniel A. Sasse
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ingram Micro Inc. and Synnex Corporation

13
14
15

Dated: January 17, 2014

EIMER STAHL LLP

16

/s/ Nathan P. Eimer

17

Nathan P. Eimer
Attorneys for Defendants
LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS

1

Dated: January 17, 2014

ROPES & GRAY LLP

2

/s/ Mark S. Popofsky

3

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

4
5
6

Dated: January 17, 2014

BAKER BOTTS LLP

7

/s/ Evan Werbel

8

Evan Werbel
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.

9
10
11
12

Dated: January 17, 2014

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

13

/s/ Lisa M. Kaas

14

Lisa M. Kaas
Attorneys for Defendants
BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp.

15
16
17

Dated: January 17, 2014

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

18

/s/ Belinda Lee

19

Belinda Lee
Attorneys for Defendants
Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc.

20
21
22

Dated: January 17, 2014

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

23

/s/ Robert B. Pringle

24

Robert B. Pringle
Attorneys for Defendant
NEC Corporation

25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-4-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS

1

Dated: January 17, 2014

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

2

/s/ John F. Cove, Jr.

3

John F. Cove, Jr.
Attorneys for Defendants
Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc America, Inc., Sony
Optiarc Inc., and Sony Electronics, Inc.

4
5
6

Dated: January 17, 2014

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

7

/s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler

8

Jeffrey L. Kessler
Attorneys for Defendants
Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of
North America

9
10
11

Dated: January 17, 2014

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

12

/s/ Mary Ellen Hennessy

13

Mary Ellen Hennessy
Aharon S. Kaye
Attorneys for Defendants
TEAC Corporation and TEAC America Inc.

14
15
16
17

FILER ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the Local Rules of Practice in Civil Proceedings Before the

18
19

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, I, Daniel A. Sasse, hereby

20

attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other

21

signatories.

22

Dated: January 17, 2014

/s/ Daniel A. Sasse
Daniel A. Sasse

23
24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-5-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

Dated: _______________, 2014
1/24

__________________________________
Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-6-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05372-RS