UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
February 13, 2012
PANASONIC CORPORATION PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA DR. DAN OLIVER, JEANNIE OLIVER, JOE BERNARD GROSS, SUSAN KEELIN,
WALTER KVASNIK, KOU SRIMOUNGHANCH, HUMBERTO
GONZALEZ, SAMUEL D. LEGGETT, BRIAN ALBEE, MARY LOUISE FOWLER, JOE SHAW, AND RHONDA SCHULTZ,
ON THEIR OWN BEHALVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SD-3C, LLC; PANASONIC CORP.; PANASONIC CORP. OF NORTH AMERICA; TOSHIBA CORP.; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; AND SANDISK CORP.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Court Judge
ALDO A. BADINI (SBN 257086) 1 firstname.lastname@example.org DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 951-1120 Facsimile: (212) 632-0888 JEFFREY L. KESSLER (admitted pro hac vice) email@example.com DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 259-8000 Facsimile: (212) 259-6333 Attorneys for Defendants
[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SET MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS AND TO STAY DISCOVERY
defendants Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba Corporation, 3 (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Joint Stipulation to Extend Time Within Which to Respond to 5 Complaint Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), which provided that Defendants' time to respond to an 6 amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs would be extended to include the ninetieth (90th) day after 7 the filing date of such an amended complaint; 8
WHEREAS on June 27, 2011, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., SD-3C, LLC, and SanDisk Corporation 4
WHEREAS on November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the June 27, 2011 stipulation among the parties, the time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint was extended to February 21, 2012, which 11 is the ninetieth day after the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint; 12
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES
HERETO, through their respective counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that: (1.) Defendants may file a single joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint and a consolidated memorandum of points and authorities in support of their joint 16 motion; Plaintiffs may file a single opposition to Defendants' joint motion to dismiss; and 17
(2.) Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the time for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to
Defendants' joint motion to dismiss shall be extended to and include the forty-fifth (45th) day after 20 the date on which Defendants file their joint motion to dismiss. 21
22 reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' joint motion to dismiss shall be extended to and 23 include the twenty-fifth (25th) day after the date on which Plaintiffs file their opposition. forty (40)
Defendants may file a single consolidated reply to Plaintiffs' opposition. 18
(3.) Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the time for Defendants to file their consolidated 25 support of their joint motion to dismiss (notwithstanding that the six defendants would be entitled 26 to an aggregate of ninety pages, or fifteen pages each, pursuant to the Court's Civil Standing forty (40)
(4.) Defendants shall have a page limit of fifty (50) pages for their consolidated brief in Orders); Plaintiffs shall have a page limit of fifty (50) pages for their brief in opposition; and twenty-five (25)
Defendants shall have a page limit of thirty (30) pages for their consolidated brief in reply.
among the parties that was So Ordered by the Court on June 28, 2011, shall be extended pursuant to 3
Local Rule 6-2(a), and all discovery in this action shall be stayed through the ninetieth (90th) day 4 after the Court enters an Order resolving the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First 5
Amended Complaint, unless Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint, in which case discovery 6 shall be stayed until the Court enters an Order resolving the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss 7
(6.) No party shall serve requests for discovery until the stay has expired.
(7.) The parties shall not be required to serve initial disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), until the stay of discovery has expired. stay of discovery.
14 for the Case Management Conference and associated discovery and ADR obligations after the stay 15 requested herein expires. 16 (5.) The stay of discovery in this case, which has been in effect pursuant to a stipulation Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 8
(8.) This Stipulation is made without prejudice to any party's right to move to extend the
(9.) The parties agree and stipulate that they will confer and propose to the Court a date
(10.) This Stipulation applies to this proceeding only.
By: s/Daniel M. Wall Daniel M. Wall (SBN 102580) Belinda S. Lee (SBN 199635) Sarah M. Ray (SBN 229670) Latham & Watkins LLP 2 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 3 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 4 5 Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation and 6 Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. By: s/Frank M. Hinman Frank M. Hinman (SBN 157402) 7 Sujal J. Shah (SBN 215230) Rianne E. Rocca (SBN 221640) 8 Bingham McCutchen LLP Three Embarcadero Center 9 San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2462 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 Richard S. Taffet* Bingham McCutchen LLP 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4689 Telephone: (212) 705-7729 Facsimile: (212) 702-3603 *admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Defendant SanDisk Corporation Pursuant to General Order No. 45 § X.B., the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the above signatories.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.