United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
February 27, 2014
IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS
Joseph W. Cotchett (36324), Steven N. Williams (175489), Nancy L. Fineman (124870), Frank C. Damrell, Jr. (37126), Joana W. LiCalsi (288771), COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP, Burlingame, CA,
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice), HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, WA.
Jeff D. Friedman (173886), Shana Scarlett (217895), Jon T. King (205073), HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Berkeley, CA.
Elizabeth J. Cabraser (083151), Richard M. Heimann (63607), Eric B. Fastiff (182260), Joy A. Kruse (142799), Brendan P. Glackin (199643), Marc A. Pilotin (266369), Lin Y. Chan (255027), LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &, BERNSTEIN, LLP, San Francisco, CA. Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
Jeffrey L. Kessler, (pro hac vice), A. Paul Victor, (pro hac vice), Eva W. Cole, (pro hac vice), Jeffrey J. Amato (pro hac vice), WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, New York, NY.
Ian L. Papendick (SBN 275648), Diana L. Hughes (SBN267606), WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, San Francisco, CA.
Roxann E. Henry (pro hac vice), MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Washington, DC. Counsel for Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., and, SANYO North America Corporation.
Kenneth P. Ewing, Robert W. Fleishman, Andrew J. Sloniewsky, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, D.C. Counsel for LG Chem America, Inc.
Craig P. Seebald (pro hac vice), Lindsey R. Vaala (pro hac vice), Hannah C. Wilson (pro hac vice), VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Washington, D.C.
Matthew J. Jacobs (SBN 171149), VINSON & ELKINS LLP, San Francisco, California Counsel for Maxell Corporation of America and Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. (Bar No. 75484), Todd A. Seaver (Bar No. 271067), Jessica Moy (Bar No. 272941), BERMAN DeVALERIO, San Francisco, CA.
Bruce L. Simon (Bar No. 96241), Robert G. Retana (Bar No. 148677), Aaron M. Sheanin (Bar No. 214472), William J. Newsom (Bar No. 267643), PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW LLP San Francisco, CA 94104
Guido Saveri (Bar No. 22349), R. Alexander Saveri (Bar No. 126910), Geoffrey C. Rushing (Bar No. 280961), Cadio R. Zirpoli (Bar No. 126910), David Y. Hwu (Bar No. 281780), Melissa Conwell Shapiro (Bar No. 242724), SAVERI AND SAVERI INC., San Francisco, CA, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel.
Gary L. Halling, James L. McGinnis, Michael W. Scarborough SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON San Francisco, CA. Counsel for Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., and Samsung SDI America, Inc.
Robert B. Pringle (SBN: 051365), Paul R. Griffin (SBN: 083541), Sean D. Meenan (SBN: 260466) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP San Francisco, CA Counsel for NEC Corporation and NEC Tokin Corporation
John C. Dwyer COOLEY LLP Palo Alto, CA Counsel for Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, and Sony Electronics, Inc.
Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice), WHITE & CASE LLP Washington, DC Attorneys for Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PHASE II MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTS
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Status Conference Statement (ECF No. 371) and the positions of the parties at the February 7, 2014 status conference and in their previously-filed letter briefs regarding issues to be determined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ( see ECF Nos. 258 (Defs.' Ltr.), 268 (DPP Ltr.), 269 (IPP Ltr.)), the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following (1) briefing for Phase II of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff proposed class action, (2) schedule for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") to file their respective Second Consolidated Amended Complaints ("SCACs"), and (3) briefing of motions to dismiss the DPP-SCAC and IPP-SCAC:
1. DEFENDANTS' (PHASE II) MOTION TO DISMISS THE IPP CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT
Issues That May Be Presented. Defendants may file a motion to dismiss against the allegations set forth in the IPPs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (which has already been dismissed with leave to amend pursuant to the Court's January 21, 2014 Order re Motions to Dismiss ("MTD Order") (ECF No. 361)) on the following issues:
Whether the IPPs have standing to bring claims under the laws of the states that apply the Associated General Contractors doctrine or analogous antitrust standing principles. See ECF No. 258 (Defs.' Ltr.) § I.B.2 & n.2.
Whether the Illinois Brick doctrine bars IPPs' claims for the states that apply Illinois Brick in whole or in part. See id. § I.B.3.
Whether the IPPs have constitutional standing for claims under Montana and Utah law, and for any subclasses of governmental plaintiffs outside of California, to the extent IPPs continue to assert such claims. See id. § I.B.5.
Whether certain IPP state law claims were deficiently pled and require dismissal. See id. § I.B.6.
Schedule and page limits. The following schedule and page limits shall apply to the Phase II motion to dismiss briefing:
Defendants' joint opening brief shall be due on March 7, 2014 and shall not exceed thirty (30) pages.
IPPs' opposition brief shall be due on April 7, 2014 and shall not exceed thirty (30) pages.
Defendants' joint reply brief shall be due on April 28, 2014, and shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.
Hearing is set for May 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Defendants' Motion to Strike Certain IPP Class Allegations. Pursuant to the Court's February 19, 2014 Order, the Court shall not entertain Defendants' proposed motion to strike the IPPs' nationwide class allegations at this time.
2. SCHEDULE AND PROTOCOL FOR PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILINGS
Both the DPPs and IPPs will file their respective SCACs no later than March 26, 2014. Within one day after filing, both the DPPs and IPPs will provide the Court, and serve Defendants, with a "track changes" or redline version of the SCACs which tracks the amendments made to the DPP and IPP (first) Consolidated Amended Complaints.
3. SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINTS
If Defendants do not answer the SCACs in the first instance, Defendants may jointly file motions to dismiss the respective SCACs, and separate defendant groups of related companies may file individual motions to dismiss on issues unique to those defendants, e.g., challenging the sufficiency of the specific allegations against those individual defendants, which do not duplicate the arguments in the joint motions. The following schedule and page limits shall apply to motion to dismiss briefing:
Defendants' joint motions to dismiss the two SCACs, and any respective individual motions to dismiss, shall be due on April 25, 2014. The page limits set forth in N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7 shall apply to the briefing of Defendants' joint motions to dismiss the DPP-SCAC and IPP-SCAC. The defendants' respective individual opening briefs, if any, shall not exceed seven (7) pages. Any Defendant which does not move to dismiss will answer the SCAC on or before April 25, 2014.
DPPs' and IPP's respective opposition briefs shall be due May 27, 2014. The page limits set forth in N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7 shall apply to DPPs' and IPPs' oppositions to the joint motions to dismiss the DPP-SCAC and IPP-SCAC. DPPs' oppositions to any defendants' respective individual motions shall not exceed seven (7) pages.
Defendants' joint and individual reply briefs shall be due June 17, 2014. The page limits set forth in N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7 shall apply to the reply briefs for the joint motions to dismiss the DPP-SCAC and IPP-SCAC. The defendants' respective individual reply briefs shall not exceed four (4) pages.
Whether and when the motions shall be heard will be subject to a subsequent order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.