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

Filing 48

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/4/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Nathan P. Eimer (Pro Hac Vice)
Vanessa G. Jacobsen (Pro Hac Vice)
Arin C. Aragona (Pro Hac Vice)
Gina K. Lin (Pro Hac Vice)
Ameri R. Klafeta (Bar No. 225859)
Eimer Stahl LLP
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants
LG Electronics, Inc. &
LG Electronics USA, Inc.

12
13

[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16
17

IN RE: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

18

MDL Docket No. 3:10-md-02143-RS
Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-RS

This Document Relates to:
19
20
21
22
23

Ingram Micro Inc., et al.,
Plaintiff
v.

STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT

LG Electronics, Inc., et al.
Defendants.

24

WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 1249), Plaintiffs Ingram Micro

25

Inc. and Synnex Corporation (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Amended Complaint for

26

Damages and Injunctive Relief (the “Amended Complaint”) on June 16, 2014; and

27

WHEREAS, according to that Order, the deadline for Defendants, including

28

D efendants LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (“LGEUS”)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S AND LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.’S STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:10-MD-02143-RS

1

(collectively, the “LG Defendants”), to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended

2

Complaint is July 31, 2014; and

3
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the LG Defendants are discussing Plaintiffs’ claims and the
defenses of the LG Defendants and desire additional time to continue those discussions; and

5

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the LG Defendants have agreed to a modest extension of

6

time in which the LG Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended

7

Complaint;

8

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that:

9

1.

10
11
12
13

The LG Defendants’ answer or other response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint

may be filed on or before September 1, 2014, and
2.

This extension does not affect the deadline for any other Defendant to answer or

otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LG Defendants and Plaintiffs have caused this

14

Stipulation to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

15

DATED: July 31, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

16

For the LG Defendants:

17
18

By: /s/ Nathan P. Eimer
Nathan P. Eimer (Pro Hac Vice)
Vanessa G. Jacobsen (Pro Hac Vice)
Arin C. Aragona (Pro Hac Vice)
Gina K. Lin (Pro Hac Vice)
Ameri R. Klafeta (Bar No. 225859)
EIMER STAHL LLP
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Counsel for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.
and LG Electronics USA, Inc.

28

___________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S AND LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.’S STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:10-MD-02143-RS
-2

-

1

For Plaintiffs:

2
3

DATED: July 31, 2014

By:_/s/ Daniel A. Sasse___________
Daniel A. Sasse (CSB No. 236234)
Angela J. YU (CSB No. 263212)
Crowell & Moring
3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc.
and Synnex Corporation

10
11
12

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of
this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

13
14

DATED: July 31, 2014

/s/ Nathan P. Eimer
Nathan P. Eimer

15
16
17

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

DATED: __________________
8/4/14

______________________________
Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

___________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S AND LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.’S STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:10-MD-02143-RS
-3

-