Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-01260/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-01260-5/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 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01260-JSW

Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) 

jkessler@winston.com 

Aldo A. Badini (SBN 257086) 

abadini@winston.com 

Susannah P. Torpey (pro hac vice) 

storpey@winston.com 

James F. Lerner (pro hac vice) 

jlerner@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166 

212-294-4601 

212-294-4700 (fax) 

Ian L. Papendick (SBN 275648) 

ipapendick@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415-591-6905 

415-591-1400 (fax) 

Attorneys For Defendants 

Panasonic Corporation 

Panasonic Corporation of North America 

[Counsel For Additional Stipulating Parties Listed On Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DR. DAN OLIVER, JEANNIE OLIVER, 

JOE SOLO, BERNARD GROSS, SUSAN 

KEELIN, WALTER KVASNIK, KOU 

SRIMOUNGHANCH, HUMBERTO 

GONZALEZ, SAMUEL D. LEGGETT, 

BRIAN ALBEE, MARY LOUISE 

FOWLER, JOE SHAW, and RHONDA 

SHULTZ, on their own behalves and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SD-3C LLC; PANASONIC CORP.; 

PANASONIC CORP. OF NORTH 

AMERICA; TOSHIBA CORP.; TOSHIBA 

AMERICA ELECTRONIC 

COMPONENTS, INC.; and 

SANDISK CORP. 

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:11-cv-01260-JSW 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, MOTION TO DISMISS 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND PAGE 

LIMITS, AND STAY OF DISCOVERY

The Hon. Jeffrey S. White 

Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor 

Case 4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document 125 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 6 Case4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document124 Filed01/30/15 Page1 of 6
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

1 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01260-JSW 

WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014 the Court granted the joint motion to set a Case 

Management Conference filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) and defendants 

Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba 

America Electronic Components, Inc., SD-3C, LLC, and SanDisk Corporation (collectively, 

“Defendants”) and set a Case Management Conference for February 6, 2015; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs seek to file a Second Amended Complaint; 

WHEREAS, in light of the Court’s orders in connection with the Case Management 

Conference held in the related Samsung action on January 9, 2015, the parties in this action have 

reached certain agreements that they believe will obviate the need for the Court to hold a Case 

Management Conference at this time; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO, through 

their respective counsel, subject to the approval to the Court, that: 

1. The Case Management Conference on calendar for February 6, 2015, and the 

deadline to file a Joint Case Management Statement, should be taken off calendar; 

2. Plaintiffs will file their Second Amended Complaint on or before February 3, 2015; 

3. By stipulating to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants do not 

consent to any amendment that would expand the legal issues to be resolved by the Court. To the 

extent Defendants believe any particular amendment is improper, they shall advise Plaintiffs of 

which portions of the Second Amended Complaint they deem improper, in which case Plaintiffs 

shall promptly move for leave to amend the complaint in those respects, and Defendants reserve all 

rights to oppose the amendment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiffs have advised 

Defendants that they intend to amend to add a cause(s) of action under Florida law for the alleged 

Florida subclass, and Defendants do not object in principle that such amendment is improper; 

4. Defendants may file a single joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Second 

Amended Complaint and a consolidated memorandum of points and authorities in support of their 

joint motion; Plaintiffs may file a single opposition to Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss; and 

Defendants may file a single consolidated reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition; 

5. Defendants will file their motion to dismiss on or before February 27, 2015; 

Case 4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document 125 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 6 Case4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document124 Filed01/30/15 Page2 of 6
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

2 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01260-JSW 

6. Plaintiffs will file their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before 

March 13, 2015; 

7. Defendants will file their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition on or before March 20, 

2015; 

8. Defendants shall have a page limit of thirty-five (35) pages for their consolidated 

brief in support of their joint motion to dismiss (notwithstanding that the six defendants would be 

entitled to an aggregate of ninety pages, or fifteen pages each, pursuant to the Court’s Civil 

Standing Orders); Plaintiffs shall have a page limit of thirty-five (35) pages for their brief in 

opposition; and Defendants shall have a page limit of twenty (20) pages for their consolidated brief 

in reply; 

9. Plaintiffs request that that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be set for hearing on 

March 27, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., the same date and time that the motion to dismiss in the related 

action, Samsung v. Panasonic Corp., No. 10-cv-3098, is scheduled for hearing. Defendants 

neither oppose nor join this request. Should the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request and strike this 

paragraph from this Stipulation, Defendants will notice their motion to dismiss for hearing on the 

first date available in accordance with the N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rules and the Court’s Calendar 

Scheduling Notes; 

10. The stay of discovery in this case, which has been in effect pursuant to a stipulation 

among the parties that was So Ordered by the Court on June 28, 2011 and renewed on February 

13, 2012, shall remain in effect pending further order of the Court lifting or modifying the stay, or 

setting a Case Management Conference in the event that the Court denies or denies in part 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss; 

11. No party shall serve requests for discovery until the stay has expired; 

12. The parties shall not be required to serve initial disclosures, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), until the stay of discovery has expired; 

13. This Stipulation is made without prejudice to any party’s right to move to extend 

the stay of discovery; 

14. The parties agree and stipulate that they will confer and propose to the Court a date 

Case4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document124 Filed01/30/15 Page3 of 6

The hearing in the related matter shall be continued to same date as hearing 

in this matter.

Case 4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document 125 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 6
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

3 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01260-JSW 

for the Case Management Conference and associated discovery and ADR obligations after the stay 

requested herein expires; 

15. This Stipulation applies to this proceeding only. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ________________________, 2015 ____________________________________ 

 Hon. Jeffrey S. White 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document124 Filed01/30/15 Page4 of 6

February 2

Case 4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document 125 Filed 02/03/15 Page 4 of 6
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

4 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01260-JSW 

Dated: January 30, 2015 

By: /s/ Amanda K. Bonn 

Max L. Tribble Jr. pro hac vice

mtribble@susmangodfrey.com 

Joseph S. Grinstein pro hac vice

jgrinste@susmangodfrey.com 

Eric J. Mayer pro hac vice 

emayer@susmangodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 

Houston, TX 77002-5096 

Telephone: 713-651-9366 

Facsimile: 713-654-6666 

Marc M. Seltzer (Bar No. 54534) 

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

Amanda K. Bonn (Bar No. 270891) 

abonn@susmangodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 

Telephone: 310-789-3100 

Facsimile: 310-789-3150 

Isaac L. Diel pro hac vice 

idiel@sharpmcqueen.com 

Sharp McQueen PA 

6900 College Blvd., Suite 285 

Overland Park, Kansas 66211-1547 

Tel. 913-661-9931 

Daniel L. Karon pro hac vice

karon@gsk-law.com 

GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, PC 

700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 204 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

Tel. 216-622-1851 

Thomas J.H. Brill pro hac vice

brillkc@gmail.com 

Law Office of Thomas H. Brill 

8012 State Line Road, Suite 102 

Leawood, Kansas 66208-3712 

Tel. 913-677-2004 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler 

Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) 

jkessler@winston.com 

Aldo A. Badini (SBN 257086) 

abadini@winston.com 

Susannah P. Torpey (pro hac vice) 

storpey@winston.com 

James F. Lerner (pro hac vice) 

jlerner@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166 

212-294-4601 

212-294-4700 (fax) 

Ian L. Papendick (SBN 275648) 

ipapendick@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415-591-6905 

415-591-1400 (fax) 

Attorneys For Defendants 

Panasonic Corporation 

Panasonic Corporation of North America

By: /s/ Richard S. Taffet 

Richard S. Taffet 

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com 

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 

399 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022-4689 

212-705-7729 

212-705-5378 (fax) 

Kristen A. Palumbo 

kristen.palumbo@morganlewis.com 

Bess Kennedy 

bess.kennedy@morganlewis.com 

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415-393-2000 

415-393-2286 (fax) 

Attorneys For Defendant 

SanDisk Corp. 

Case 4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document 125 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 6 Case4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document124 Filed01/30/15 Page5 of 6
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

5 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01260-JSW 

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence 

in filing of this document has been obtained from the above signatories

By: s/ Christopher B. Hockett 

Christopher B. Hockett 

chris.hockett@davispolk.com 

Neal Alan Potischman 

neal.potischman@davispolk.com 

Samantha Harper Knox 

samantha.knox@davispolk.com 

Davis Polk & Wardwell 

1600 El Camino Real 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

650-752-2000 

650-752-2111 (fax) 

Attorneys For Defendant 

SD-3 LLC 

By:/s/ Belinda S Lee 

Daniel M. Wall 

dan.wall@lw.com 

Belinda S Lee 

belinda.lee@lw.com 

Sarah M. Ray 

sarah.ray@lw.com 

Latham & Watkins LLP 

505 Montgomery Street 

Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415-391-0600 

415-395-8095 (fax) 

Attorneys For Defendants 

Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., 

and Toshiba Corporation 

Case 4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document 125 Filed 02/03/15 Page 6 of 6 Case4:11-cv-01260-JSW Document124 Filed01/30/15 Page6 of 6