From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nokia Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jan 18, 2012
Case No. 09-cv-5609 SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 09-cv-5609 SI Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI MDL No. 1827

01-18-2012

In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To: NOKIA CORPORATION and NOKIA, INC., Plaintiffs, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP JOHN M. GRENFELL (CA Bar No. 88500) JACOB R. SORENSEN (CA Bar No. 209134) FUSAE NARA (pro hac vice) ANDREW D. LANPHERE (CA Bar No. 191479) Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

JOHN M. GRENFELL (CA Bar No. 88500)

JACOB R. SORENSEN (CA Bar No. 209134)

FUSAE NARA (pro hac vice)

ANDREW D. LANPHERE (CA Bar No. 191479)

Attorneys for Defendants

SHARP CORPORATION and

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER MODIFYING DEADLINE

FOR FILING OF MOTIONS TO

COMPEL

Plaintiffs Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. and Defendants (collectively, "Parties") hereby stipulate as follows:

STIPULATION

WHEREAS discovery closed in this case on December 8, 2011, as set forth in the Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Schedule for "Track One" Direct Action Plaintiff and State Attorney General Actions (Dkt. No. 3110, the "Scheduling Order");

WHEREAS the Court has entered an Order extending the close of fact discovery set forth in the Scheduling Order for the limited purpose of allowing sufficient time for defendants to take the depositions of Nokia employees Juha Liukkonen and Timo Mustonen (Dkt. No. 4254);

WHEREAS the Court has entered an order extending the close of fact discovery set forth in the Scheduling Order for the limited purpose of extending the deadline for which Nokia and certain other Direct Action Plaintiffs in Track One have to respond to discovery requests served by defendants between October 31 and November 4, 2011 and to update Exhibit A (chart of conspiracy evidence) to previously served discovery responses (Dkt. 4350);

WHEREAS, the Court has entered an Order extending the time for the filing of motions to compel as to Nokia's and defendants' remaining discovery responses (Dkt. 4387);

WHEREAS the parties are continuing to meet and confer regarding two issues related to Nokia's response to defendants' discovery: (1) Nokia's production of data regarding the cost of production of Nokia handsets; and (2) Nokia's deposition testimony in response to topic 16 of defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notices to Nokia;

WHEREAS, the parties hope to resolve these issues informally, without the need to file motions to compel and seek the Court's involvement;

WHEREAS the current deadline for parties to file motions to compel with respect to these issues is January 13, 2012 (see Dkt. 4387); and

WHEREAS in an effort to facilitate the informal resolution of these issues, the parties wish to extend the deadline for defendants to file any motions to compel with respect to them through January 27, 2012.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, through their undersigned respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:

The deadline for defendants to file any motion to compel with respect to (1) Nokia's production of data regarding the cost of production of Nokia handsets, and (2) Nokia's deposition testimony in response to topic 16 of defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notices to Nokia, is extended through and including January 27, 2012.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

JOHN M. GRENFELL

JACOB R. SORENSEN

FUSAE NARA

ANDREW D. LANPHERE

By: Andrew Lanphere

Attorneys for Defendants SHARP

CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

KENT M. ROGER (State Bar No. 95987)

MICHELLE KIM-SZROM (State Bar No.

252901)

By: Kent M. Roger

Attorneys for Defendants HITACHI, LTD.,

HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD. and HITACHI

ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON

LLP

GARY L. HALLING (State Bar No. 66087)

JAMES L. McGINNIS (State Bar No. 95788)

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH (State Bar No.

203524)

By: Michael W. Scarborough

Attorneys for Defendants

SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG

SDI AMERICA, INC.

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

TIMOTHY C. HESTER (pro hac vice)

ROBERT D. WICK (pro hac vice)

By:Robert D. Wick

Attorneys for Defendants SAMSUNG

ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

WHITE & CASE LLP

CHRISTOPHER M. CURRAN (pro hac vice)

JOHN H. CHUNG (pro hac vice)

KRISTEN J. MCAHREN (pro hac vice)

By: John H. Chung

Attorneys for Defendants TOSHIBA

CORPORATION, TOSHIBA MOBILE

DISPLAY CO., LTD., TOSHIBA AMERICA

ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., and

TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION

SYSTEMS, INC.

ALSTON + BIRD LLP

RANDALL ALLEN (State Bar No. 264067)

ALSTON + BIRD LLP

LISA BOJKO

VALARIE WILLIAMS

B. PARKER MILLER

By: B. Parker Miller

Attorneys for Plaintiffs NOKIA, INC. and

NOKIA CORPORATION

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

The Honorable Susan Illston

District Court Judge
ATTESTATION: Pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.


Summaries of

Nokia Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jan 18, 2012
Case No. 09-cv-5609 SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Nokia Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Jan 18, 2012

Citations

Case No. 09-cv-5609 SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012)