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, Ninth Circuit

June 4, 2013

In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-829-SI This Document Relates To: MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Office Depot, Inc.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-2225-SI Interbond Corp. of America
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-3763-SI Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC,
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-3856-SI P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-4119-SI CompuCom Systems, Inc.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-6241-SI NECO Alliance LLC
v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:12-cv-1426-SI

William A. Isaacson (admitted pro hac vice), Melissa Felder (admitted pro hac vice), BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, D.C., Philip J. Iovieno (admitted pro hac vice), Anne M. Nardacci (admitted pro hac vice), Luke Nikas (admitted pro hac vice), Christopher V. Fenlon (admitted pro hac vice), BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Albany, NY, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Stuart H. Singer, Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER, & FLEXNER LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiffs' Office Depot, Inc.

Carl. L. Blumenstein, Farschad Farzan, Natasha A. Saggar Sheth, NOSSAMAN LLP, San Francisco, California, Counsel for Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO MEET AND CONFER AND/OR FILE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Direct Action Plaintiffs Office Depot, Inc.; Interbond Corporation of America; Schultze Agency Services, LLC; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation; MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc.; ABC Appliance, Inc.; CompuCom Systems, Inc.; MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.; and NECO Alliance LLC (collectively, "Direct Action Plaintiffs"), and Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (collectively, "AU Optronics" and together with Direct Action Plaintiffs, the "Parties") stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS the Parties have previously stipulated to, and the Court has approved, the extension of dates set in the Court's Orders re Pretrial and Trial Schedule (MDL Dkt. No. 7665) ("Track 2 Scheduling Stipulation");

WHEREAS the Track 2 Scheduling Stipulation extended the close of fact discovery to May 17, 2013;

WHEREAS on February 22, 2013, Direct Action Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Admission and First Set of Interrogatories to AU Optronics (the "DAP Discovery");

WHEREAS AU Optronics' responses to the DAP Discovery were due on March 28, 2013;

WHEREAS Direct Action Plaintiffs agreed to extend AU Optronics' time to respond to the DAP Discovery to April 18;

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred regarding AU Optronics' responses to the DAP Discovery before the close of fact discovery;

WHEREAS additional time is needed to meet and confer regarding AU Optronics' responses to the DAP Discovery;

WHEREAS on April 12, 2013 AU Optronics served Defendant AU Optronics Corporation's First Set of Requests for Admission to Direct Action Plaintiffs; Defendant AU Optronics Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories to Direct Action Plaintiffs; and Defendant AU Optronics Corporation's First Set of Requests for Production to Direct Action Plaintiffs (the "AUO Discovery");

WHEREAS Direct Action Plaintiffs timely served responses to the AUO Discovery on May 15, 2013;

WHEREAS AU Optronics has requested additional time to meet and confer regarding Direct Action Plaintiffs' responses to the AUO Discovery; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows:

The period for AU Optronics and Direct Action Plaintiffs to meet and confer regarding their responses to the DAP Discovery and the AUO Discovery, respectively, and/or for any party to file a motion to compel regarding the DAP Discovery and/or the AUO Discovery is extended to June 24, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from stipulating defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.