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 Tft-Lcd (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


April 6, 2012

IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Illston, United States District Judge

Jeffrey H. Howard (pro hac vice) Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice) 2 CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 3 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: 202-624-2500 4 Facsimile: 202-628-5116 Email: jhoward@crowell.com 5 jmurphy@crowell.com Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806) Joshua C. Stokes (CA Bar No. 220214) 7 Nathanial J. Wood (CA Bar No. 223547) CROWELL & MORING LLP 8 515 South Flower St., 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 9 Telephone: 213-622-4750 Facsimile: 213-622-2690 10 Email: jmurray@crowell.com jstokes@crowell.com 6 11 Liaison Counsel for Undersigned Direct Action 12 Plaintiffs 13 [Additional counsel listed on signature page] 14

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR LG DISPLAY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

This Document Relates To:

Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04572 SI Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Epson 23 Imaging Devices Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00117 SI 24 Target Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics 25 Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04945 SI 26 Alfred H. Siegel, As Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust v. AU 27 Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv05625 SI 28 SB Liquidation Trust v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05458 SI 2 Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics 3 Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03205 SI 4 Costco Wholesale Corporation v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-5 cv00058 SI 6 Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., C 09-5840 SI 7 AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. AU Optronics 8 Corporation, et al., No. 3:09-cv-4997 SI 9 State of Florida v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3517 SI. 10 11 State of Missouri, et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03619 SI 12 State of Oregon, ex rel John Kroger, Attorney 13 General v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:10-4346 SI 14 Display") and the Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs") and State Attorneys General ("AGs") in the 3 above captioned actions stipulate as follows: 4 5 to add Additional Defenses and a Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief in Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. 6 v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04572 SI, Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. 7 v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00117 SI, Target Corp., et al. v. 8 AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04945 SI, Alfred H. Siegel, As Trustee of the 9 Defendants LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, "LG

WHEREAS LG Display filed a Motion for leave to amend their respective Answers and

Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-10 cv05625 SI, SB Liquidation Trust v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05458 SI, 11 Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03205 SI, Costco 12 Wholesale Corporation v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv00058 SI, Motorola 13 Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., C 09-5840 SI , AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. 14 AU Optronics Corporation, et al., No. 3:09-cv-4997 SI, State of Florida v. AU Optronics 15 Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3517 SI, State of Missouri, et al. v. AU Optronics 16 Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03619 SI, State of Oregon, ex rel John Kroger, Attorney 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on March 22, 2012 (hereafter, "LG Display's Motion to 19

WHEREAS the DAPs and AGs are currently required to file their Opposition to LG

Display's Motion to Amend on or before April 5, 2012; 22 23 on May 18, 2012; 24 25 to Amend until after the April 20, 2012 hearing on duplicative recovery in the Indirect Purchaser 26

Plaintiff case, and believe that a continuance will allow for more efficient use of the Court's and 27 the parties time by potentially streamlining issues for resolution; 28

General v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:10-4346 SI pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the 18 Amend"); 20

WHEREAS the hearing on LG Display's Motion to Amend is scheduled to be to be heard

WHEREAS the parties desire to continue the briefing schedule for LG Display's Motion

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned DAPs, AGs, and LG

Display, by and through their undersigned liaison counsel and subject to the concurrence of the 3 Court, as follows: 4

(1) The time for the undersigned DAPs and AGs served with LG Display's Motion to Amend to file their Oppositions to LG Display's Motion shall be extended to and including April 6 27, 2012. The DAPs shall file a single opposition brief to LG Display's Motion to Amend. 7

(2) LG Display's time to file its Reply(ies) in support of its Motion shall be extended to 8 and including May 8, 2012. 9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

there to has been obtained.

DCACTIVE-18025086.4

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the signatories

20120406

© 1992-2012 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.