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
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.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.