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 13, 2013

In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., Office Depot, Inc. This Document Relates To: Metro PCS Wireless, Inc.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., Interbond Corp. of America
v.
AU Optronics Corp., Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC,
v.
AU Optronics Corp., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp.,
v.
AU Optronics Corp., Tech Data Corp.,
v.
AU Optronics Corp., The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee
v.
AU Optronics Corp., CompuCom Systems, Inc.
v.
AU Optronics Corp., NECO Alliance LLC
v.
AU Optronics Corp.

William A. Isaacson, Melissa Felder, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, D.C.

Philip J. Iovieno, Anne M. Nardacci, Luke Nikas, Christopher V. Fenlon, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Albany, NY, Counsel for Plaintiffs MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Interhond Corp. of America; Schultze Agency Services, LLC; P. C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation; MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc.; ABC Appliance Inc.; Tech Data Corp. and Tech Data Product Management, Inc.; The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust; CompuCom Systems, Inc.; and NECO Alliance LLC.

Stuart H. Singer, Meredith Schultz, BOIES, SCHILLER, & FLEXNER LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiffs Office Depot, Inc.; Tech Data Corp. and Tech Data Product Management, Inc.; and The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust.

Robert W. Turken, Mitchell E. Widom, Scott N. Wagner, BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP, Miami, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiffs Tech Data Corp. and Tech Data Product Management, Inc. and The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust.

Neal A. Potischman, (SBN 254862), DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP, Menlo Park, California, Counsel for Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (n/k/a Innolux Corporation), CMO Japan Co., Ltd., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. for the Office Depot, Inc., Jaco Electronics, Inc., Interbond Corp. of America, Schultze Agency Services, LLC, P. C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., , Tech Data Corp., , The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, CompuCotn Systems, Inc., Viewsonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC, and Rockwell Automation, Inc. Actions Only.

Michael R. Scott, (pro hac vice), Michael J. Ewart, (pro hac vice), Seattle, WA, Counsel for Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (n/k/a Innolux Corporation), CMO Japan Co., Ltd., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. for the MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Action Only.

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

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Direct Action Plaintiffs MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.; 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.; Tech Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc.; The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee; CompuCom Systems, Inc.; and NECO Alliance LLC (collectively, "Direct Action Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd. (collectively "Chi Mei Defendants" 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 April 12, 2013 Direct Action Plaintiffs served their First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Admission to Chi Mei Defendants (the "Discovery");

WHEREAS Chi Mei Defendants served responses to the Discovery on May 16, 2013;

WHEREAS the Parties have endeavored to meet and confer regarding Chi Mei Defendants' responses to the Discovery;

WHEREAS the Parties previously stipulated to extend the period to meet and confer regarding Chi Mei Defendants' responses to the Discovery and/or for Direct Action Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel regarding Chi Mei Defendants' responses to the Discovery to June 7, 2013;

WHEREAS additional time is needed to meet and confer regarding Chi Mei Defendants' responses to the Discovery;

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

The period for Chi Mei Defendants and Direct Action Plaintiffs to meet and confer regarding Chi Mei Defendants' responses to the Discovery and/or for Direct Action Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel regarding Chi Mei Defendants' responses to the Discovery is extended to June 21, 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.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.


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.