UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)
September 27, 2011
STATE OF OREGON, EX REL. JOHN KROGER,
INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP KENT M. ROGER, State Bar No, 95987 HERMAN J. HOYING, State Bar No. 257495 JENNIFER L. CALVERT, State Bar No. 258018 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com 6 firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendants HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.
This Document Relates to
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHEREAS plaintiff State of Oregon ("Oregon") filed the above captioned lawsuit on August 10, 2010; 3 WHEREAS Oregon filed a first amended complaint on April 15, 2011 ("Amended 4 Complaint"); 5
WHEREAS Defendants Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 6 7 and Hitachi, Ltd. (collectively, the "Hitachi Defendants") and Defendants Chi Mei Corporation, Chi Mei Innolux Corporation, CMO Japan Co., Ltd., and Chi Mei Optoelectronic USA, Inc. 9
(collectively, the "Chi Mei Defendants") jointly filed with other defendants a motion to dismiss 10
Count III in its entirety and Count IV to the extent it seeks "disgorgement of profits" as a remedy 11 on June 6, 2011; 12
WHEREAS the Court denied Defendants' joint motion to dismiss Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint on July 12, 2011;
WHEREAS all defendants, including the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants, entered into a stipulation with Oregon on July 21, 2011 that Defendants' deadline to answer the 17
Amended Complaint was August 12, 2011; 18
WHEREAS on July 21, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants' deadline 19 to answer the Amended Complaint until August 12, 2011; 20
WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation 16 21 22 with Oregon on August 11, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 12, 2011; 24
WHEREAS on August 24, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until 26
September 12, 2011
WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation 2 with Oregon on September 9, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' 3 deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 26, 2011; 4
WHEREAS on September 13, 2011 the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi 5 Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until 6 7 September 26, 2011;
WHEREAS extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' time to respond 9 to the Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by 10 the Court; 11 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the 12 undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Oregon, on the one hand, and the 13 14 Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants on the other hand, as follows:
Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants will have until November 4, 2011 to answer Oregon's Amended Complaint. Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants 17 agree that they will work with Oregon to expedite discovery during the time period 18 October 4 through November 4, 2011, unless changed circumstances make clear 19 immediate responses to Oregon's requests for discovery are unnecessary.
I, Kent M. Roger, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file 3 this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby 4 attest that Michael M. Kelley and Sandra West concur in this filing. 5
/s/ Kent M. Roger Kent M. Roger
Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation set forth above and pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Civil Local Rules, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.