UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
August 25, 2011
IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: D U E R I T N Hon. T IS Samuel IT SO Conti United U States District Judge
This Document Relates to: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 15 ORDER CONCERNING PENDING ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS MOTIONS RE: FINISHED PRODUCTS 829015.1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING PENDING MOTIONS RE: FINISHED PRODUCTS
consolidated amended complaint (the "Direct CAC") [dkt. no. 436]; conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of finished products containing CRTs ("CRT Finished Products"), and/or have allocated markets or customers with respect to CRT Finished Products (said claims herein referred to as the "CRT Finished Products Conspiracy WHEREAS, Defendants Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.), Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (hereinafter "Moving Defendants") filed a motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11 alleging that the CRT Finished WHEREAS, on March 16, 2009, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") filed a WHEREAS the Direct CAC includes claims that Defendants have combined and Claims");
Products Conspiracy Claims are without foundation and requesting that those allegations be stricken (the "Rule 11 Motion") [dkt. no. 880];
WHEREAS, the DPPs filed a motion against Defendants Panasonic and MT seeking discovery with respect to finished products ("DPPs' Motion to Compel CRT Finished Products WHEREAS, on June 15, 2011, Special Master Legge issued a Report andRecommendation on Motions Regarding Finished Products recommending, in relevant part, as 21 follows: (1) Moving Defendants' Rule 11 Motion be granted; (2) DPPs' allegations of a 22 conspiracy that encompasses CRT Finished Products be stricken from the Direct CAC; and (3) WHEREAS, on June 29, 2011 Moving Defendants filed a Motion to Adopt SpecialMaster's Report and Recommendations Regarding Finished Products [dkt. no. 953]; Discovery");
DPPs' Motion to Compel CRT Finished Products Discovery be denied [dkt. no. 947];
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2011, DPPs filed under seal an Objection to Special Master's Report and Recommendations on Motions Regarding Finished Products [dkt. no. 957];
WHEREAS, DPPs and Moving Defendants have met and conferred concerning Defendants' Motion to Adopt and the DPPs' Objection to the Special Master's Report and IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the undersigned Plaintiffs and Defendants, that:
Recommendations, and entered into the agreement set forth below;
1. The portion of the Special Masters' Report and Recommendations on MotionsRegarding Finished Products [dkt. no. 947] recommending a finding that DPPs violatedF.R.C.P. Rule 11 is hereby vacated;
2. The remaining portions of the Special Masters' Report and Recommendations onMotions Regarding Finished Products [dkt. no. 947], including its factual conclusionsthat (a) the DPPs made an inquiry "reasonable under the circumstances" before filing aDirect CAC that contained claims encompassing a CRT Finished Products Conspiracy,(b) that, based on the information available to the DPPs before they filed the DirectCAC,they "have not demonstrated objectively reasonable evidentiary support, direct orcircumstantial, for a conspiracy to fix the prices of CRT Finished Products," (c) therecommendation to deny DPPs' motion to compel Finished Products discovery (otherthan Finished Products discovery "limited to the issue of the impact or effect onFinished Product prices of the alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of the CRTs"), andall other factual conclusions are hereby adopted;
3. The DPPs hereby withdraw their CRT Finished Products Conspiracy Claims stated inthe Direct CAC and the allegations of the Direct CAC purporting to allege a conspiracyencompassing Finished Products are stricken from the Direct CAC, provided, however,that the issue of the possible impact or effect of the alleged fixing of prices of CRTs onthe prices of Finished Products shall remain in the case;
4. The DPPs hereby withdraw any and all requests for discovery regarding or relating toinformation in support of the CRT Finished Product Conspiracy Claims, and shall notreissue or issue new or similar requests for any such discovery, subject to Paragraph below;
5. Provided however, that the issue of the purported impact or effect of the alleged fixingof prices of the CRTs on the prices of Finished Products shall remain in the case, and isa proper subject of discovery;
6. There shall be no further motions based upon Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11 relating to the CRTFinished Product Conspiracy allegations of the Direct CAC; and
7. The fact of this stipulation and evidence of any negotiations of this stipulation shall notbe used in any litigation that is not part of, and does not become part of, this MDL.
Respectfully submitted, By: Guido Saveri R. Alexander Saveri Geoffrey C. Rushing Cadio Zirpoli SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs By: JEFFREY L. KESSLER (pro hac vice) Email: email@example.com A. PAUL VICTOR (pro hac vice) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 259-8000 Facsimile: (212) 259-7013 ALDO A. BADINI (257086) Email: email@example.com DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1950 University Avenue East Palo Alto, Cailfornia 94303 Telephone: (650) 845-7000 Facsimile: (650) 845-7333 STEVEN A. REISS (pro hac vice) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org DAVID L. YOHAI (pro hac vice) Email: email@example.com WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153-0119 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 GREGORY D. HULL (57367) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, California 94065-1175 Telephone: (650) 802-3000Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT PictureDisplay Co., Ltd. and Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.) By: KENT M. ROGER (95987) Email: email@example.com MICHELLE PARK CHIU (248421) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1126 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 J. CLAYTON EVERETT, JR. (pro hac vice) Email: email@example.com SCOTT A. STEMPEL (pro hac vice) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 Facsimile: (202) 739-3001 Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., and Hitachi Displays, Ltd. By: IAN SIMMONS (pro hac vice) Email: email@example.com BEN BRADSHAW (189925) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eve Street, NW Washnigton, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. And Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
ES DIST T RI T A CT S C O
Dated: August __, 2011
A I N Conti N R O Judge Samuel O R F T H L I N F DIS C O TRI T E R C A Crt.451
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.