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 Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 10, 2014

IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
v.
HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC., et al., Defendants. This document relates to: STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Plaintiff, MDL No. 2143

STATE OF FLORIDA Office of the Attorney General LIZABETH A. BRADY, Tallahassee, FL, Attorneys for Plaintiffs State of Florida

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP BELINDA S. LEE, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., and Toshiba Corp.

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP ROBERT B. PRINGLE, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant NEC Corporation

ROPES & GRAY LLP MARK S. POPOFSKY, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.

BAKER BOTTS LLP EVAN WERBEL, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V., Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp., and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP LISA M. KAAS, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp.

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP IAN SIMMONS, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP JOHN F. COVE, JR., Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc America, Inc., and Sony Optiarc Inc.

VINSON & ELKINS LLP CRAIG P. SEEBALD, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendant Hitachi, Ltd.

DLA PIPER LLP DEANA L. CAIRO, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendant TEAC Corporation and TEAC America Inc.

EIMER STAHL LLP NATHAN P. EIMER, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.

JONES DAY ERIC P. ENSON, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Pioneer North America, Inc., Pioneer Corporation, and Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd.

WINTSON & STRAWN LLP JEFFREY L. KESSLER, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America.

NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE & QUIGG LLP KEITH A. WALTER JR., Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for Defendant Quanta Storage Inc. and Quanta Storage America Inc.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013, this Court entered the Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Service of Process ( see Dkt. No. 1019), which set deadlines for Defendants to file their responses to the Amended Complaint for Damages, Civil Penalties, Injunctive Relief filed by the State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs ("Florida Complaint");

WHEREAS, the deadlines set forth in the above-referenced Order provide for two different response dates for the various Defendants - January 13, 2014 for certain Defendants, and the later of January 13, 2014 or 90 days from receipt of the Florida Complaint delivered in the manner stipulated, for other Defendants;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that a single date for all Defendants to respond to the Florida Complaint promotes efficiency and, thus, is preferable, and have agreed that Defendants should have until January 24, 2014 to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Florida Complaint;

WHEREAS, to the extent any Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss the Florida Complaint on that date, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or otherwise, the parties propose that Florida shall have until February 21, 2014 to file a response to any such motions and the moving Defendants shall have until March 3, 2014 to file any replies in support of such motions.

WHEREAS, to the extent any Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss, in whole or in part, the Florida Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or otherwise on January 24, 2014, the undersigned parties agree that those moving Defendants shall not be required to file an answer to the Florida Complaint, if at all, until after the Court rules on any such motion. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith and submit to the court a schedule for any such moving Defendants to file an answer, if necessary.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, and subject to Court approval, that all Defendants shall have until Friday, January 24, 2014 to file their responses to the Florida Complaint. To the extent any Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss that Complaint, in whole or in part, on that date, (i) Florida shall have until February 21, 2014 to file a response to any such motions, and Defendants shall have until March 3, 2014 to file any replies in support of such motions; (ii) those moving Defendants shall not be required to file an answer to the Florida Complaint, if at all, until after the Court rules on any such motion; and (iii) the parties shall work in good faith to agree upon and submit to the court a schedule for any such moving Defendants to file an answer, if necessary.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, 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.