Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


August 17, 2011

IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

**E-filed 8/27/2011**

ORDER RE DEADLINE FOR FILING AMENDED COMPLAINTS

This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS

The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek an order extending their time to file an amended complaint for an additional 30 days beyond the time set by the order granting the motions to 21 dismiss. Defendants oppose, stating that while they offered a "reasonable" two week extension, 22 further time is unwarranted and would cause administrative difficulties were they then required to 23 respond to the indirect purchasers' amended complaint prior to when a response to the direct 24 purchasers' amended complaint becomes due. While it may be reasonable for defendants to believe 25 that some lines must be drawn to prevent endless delay, in litigation of this scope, which has already 26 been pending for some time and which undoubtedly will take significant additional time to resolve, 27 the parties should be able to resolve among themselves what is essentially a two-week difference in 28 their respective views. The parties are therefore directed to meet and confer further to arrive at a stipulated schedule for (1) the filing of both amended complaints, (2) the filing of such responsive 2 motions as any defendants may wish to bring (or, of any answers in lieu of such motions), and (3) 3 any briefing due dates for such motions, to the extent that the parties may agree it is appropriate to 4 depart from the schedule provided by the local rules.

The statement in the order granting the motions to dismiss that it would be sufficient to provide only 30 day for amendments was made in response to a request by the indirect purchaser 7 plaintiffs that they be afforded an opportunity to locate additional representative plaintiffs from 8 jurisdictions not presently represented; it was not intended as a conclusive determination as to how 9 much time might be appropriate for plaintiffs to prepare amended complaints addressing all of the 10 issues identified in the order. That said, it is also not immediately apparent why a full 30 additional days would be necessary. In any event, the parties should strive to reach an agreement that reasonably accommodates their respective schedules and needs, and which will see this matter 13 through to the conclusion of the next round of motions without the need for court resolution of any 14 relatively minor scheduling disagreements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110817

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.