Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-53/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

ORDER

This Document Relates to:

All Direct Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of defendants’ ex parte application for an order shortening

time, and defendants’ contemporaneously filed objections to, and appeal from, the

magistrate judge’s discovery order regarding the authentication of documents and business

records. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to defendants’ ex parte application and request

to stay the magistrate judge’s ruling. 

Defendants appear to seek a hearing on their objections to the magistrate judge’s

order on September 15, 2006, with any opposition brief due by September 12, 2006, and

any reply brief due September 14, 2006. The court hereby GRANTS defendants’ ex parte

motion to shorten time with respect to the proposed briefing schedule, but owing to the

court’s unavailability due to trial on a separate matter, DENIES defendants’ ex parte motion

to shorten time with respect to the proposed hearing date. Accordingly, plaintiffs may

submit any additional opposition they wish to make by September 12, 2006, and

defendants may submit any reply in support of their objections to the magistrate judge’s

ruling by September 14, 2006. The court, however, will decide the matter on the papers,

without need for a formal hearing on the matter, as soon as the court’s trial schedule

permits. 

In light of the above, and pending further order by the court on the merits of

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1059 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants’ objections to and request to stay the magistrate judge’s ruling, all deadlines set

forth in the magistrate judge’s ruling shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1059 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2