Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-130/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: EXPERT DISCOVERY; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE (S.B. #120144)

korourke@omm.com 

STEVEN H. BERGMAN (S.B. #180542)

sbergman@omm.com 

JANE Y. CHANG (S.B. #241890)

jchang@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

400 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 

Telephone: (213) 430-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 

MICHAEL F. TUBACH (S.B. #145955)

mtubach@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

275 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC. and 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

Master File No. M-02-1486 PJH 

MDL. No. 1486 

Case No. C 06-6436 PJH 

Assigned for all purposes to the 

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES 

GOVERNING EXPERT DISCOVERY 

 

 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1759 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: EXPERT DISCOVERY; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

 Plaintiff the State of New York and Defendants agree as follows regarding the time 

and scope of any expert discovery in this case: 

 1. Within 3 business days of any party serving any expert reports and/or expert 

declarations in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), the party or parties 

proffering the expert witness shall produce all other documents and/or information 

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), namely “the data or other information considered by the 

witness in forming the [expert's] opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or 

support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all 

publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to 

be paid for the study and testimony, and a listing of any other cases in which the witness 

has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.” 

“(D)ata or other information considered” shall include, but is not limited to, raw data, 

spreadsheets, computerized regression analyses and/or other underlying reports and 

schedules sufficient to reconstruct the expert's work, calculations, and/or analyses. 

Information can be produced electronically (via email or disc) where appropriate. Where 

documents have previously been produced as part of the discovery in this case, a list of 

such documents by Bates number is sufficient. As to other documents considered by the 

expert, those documents should be produced except where widely available publicly 

without undue expense (such as on the interact, or in major university libraries). 

 2. The following types of information shall not be the subject of discovery: (1) 

the content of communications among and between: (a) counsel and experts; (b) experts 

and other experts or consultants; and/or (c) experts and their respective staffs, and (2) 

notes, drafts, written communications or other types of preliminary work created by, or 

for, experts. The foregoing exclusions from discovery will not apply to any 

communications or documents upon which the experts rely as a basis for their 

opinions/reports. 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1759 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: EXPERT DISCOVERY; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

 3. This Stipulation shall be effective only upon agreement of both Plaintiff and 

the Defendants.

Dated: October 25, 2007 

ANDREW CUOMO 

Attorney General of the State of New York 

JAY L. HIMES 

RICHARD L. SCHWARTZ 

JEREMY R. KASHA 

By: /Richard L. Schwartz/ 

 Richard L. Schwartz 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE. 

MICHAEL F. TUBACH 

STEVEN H. BERGMAN 

JANE Y. CHANG 

By: /Steven H. Bergman/ 

 Steven H. Bergman 

Attorneys for Hynix Semiconductor Inc. 

and Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. 

and, for purposes of this stipulation only, 

signing on behalf of all other defendants

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1759 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: EXPERT DISCOVERY; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

[Proposed] Order

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby orders that the 

attached stipulation regarding procedures governing expert discovery is hereby 

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________, 2007 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Court Judge 

LA2:845575.1 

October 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1759 Filed 10/26/07 Page 4 of 4