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: Lcd (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


November 4, 2011

IN RE: LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Susan Illston United States District Court Judge

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (CA SBN 34097) MGoldman@mofo.com 2 STEPHEN P. FRECCERO (CA SBN 131093) SFreccero@mofo.com 3 DEREK F. FORAN (CA SBN 224569) DForan@mofo.com 4 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 5 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 6 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION AND EPSON ELECTRONICS 9 AMERICA, INC. 10 [Additional counsel listed on signature page.] 11

This Document Relates to: Case No. 09-cv-4997

Case No. 10-cv-4572 ATS Claim, LLC v. Epson Electronics Case No. 11-cv-0058 17 America, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-1115 Case No. 10-cv-1064 Case No. 10-cv-5452 AT&T Mobility LLC et al v. AU Optronics Case No. 10-cv-0117 Corporation et al., Case No. 09-cv-4997 Case No. 09-cv-5840 19 Case No. 09-cv-5609 Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. v. AU Optronics Case No. 10-cv-4945 20 Corporation et al. Case No. 10-cv-4572 Case No. 10-cv-3205 Case No. 10-cv-3619 18 Costco Wholesale Corporation v. AU Case No. 10-cv-3517 Optronics Corporation, et al., Case 22 No. 11-cv-0058 Dell Inc. et al. v. Sharp Corporation et al., Case No. 10-cv-1064 Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging 25 Devices Corporation et al., Case No. 10-cv-5452 Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., Case No. 2 10-cv-0117 3 Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al., Case No. 09-cv-5840 4 Nokia Corporation, et al v. AU Optronics 5 Corporation et al., Case No. 09-cv-5609 6 Target Corp. et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al., Case No. 10-cv-4945 7 TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics 8 Corporation et al., Case No. 10-cv-3205 9 State of Missouri, et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al., Case No. 10-cv-3619 10 State of Florida v. AU Optronics Corporation 11 et al., Case No. 10-cv-3517

STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS AND THEIR STATUS AS "BUSINESS RECORDS"

2 the authenticity and status as business records of documents in the Direct Action Plaintiff and 3

WHEREAS, the parties also wish to avoid the costs and burdens of discovery requests and 5 depositions necessary to establish the authenticity and status as business records of documents, 6 and with that end in mind, the parties are negotiating in good faith a stipulation regarding the 7 authenticity and status as business records of documents for use in the Direct Action Plaintiff and 8

WHEREAS, the Court has set a fact discovery cut-off applicable to the Direct Action Plaintiff and Attorney General cases referenced above of December 8, 2011; 11 12 need additional time to agree on the terms of a stipulation regarding the authenticity and status as 13 business records of documents for use in the Direct Action Plaintiff and Attorney General cases 14 referenced above; 15

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the undersigned counsel on 16 behalf of the parties identified below (the "Stipulating Parties"), that in the event the parties are 17 unable to agree on a stipulation regarding the authenticity and status as business records of 18 documents for use in the Direct Action Plaintiff and Attorney General cases, referenced above, or 19 if the parties are unable to agree on the authenticity and status as business records of individual 20 documents, the Stipulating Parties may, nonetheless, proceed with discovery related to the 21 authentication and status as business records of documents for use in the foregoing actions 22 beyond the date currently set for the close of fact discovery. This stipulation does not extend the 23 discovery cut-off for any other discovery proceedings. 24

WHEREAS, the parties wish to cooperate in developing an efficient means of addressing Attorney General cases referenced above; 4 Attorney General cases referenced above; 9

WHEREAS, given the number of parties and documents the parties contemplate they will

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

I, Derek Foran, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that the 3 concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 4

Dated: November 3, 2011 By: /s/ Derek F. Foran Derek F. Foran

20111104

© 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.