Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04333/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04333-30/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

24

25

26

27

28

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General of the State of California

THOMAS GREENE

Assistant Chief Attorney General

KATHLEEN E. FOOTE

Senior Assistant Attorney General

NICOLE GORDON

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 224138

SANGEETHA M. RAGHUNATHAN

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 229129

EMILIO VARANINI

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 163952

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5908

Fax: (415) 703-5480

Email: emilio.varanini@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case No. C 06-4333 PJH

JOINT STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING

TIMING OF PLAINTIFF STATES'

RESPONSES TO CONTENTION

INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Court's September 17, 2007 Order, Plaintiff States and Defendants Nanya

Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology USA (collectively "Nanya"), Mosel Vitelic Inc. and

Mosel Vitelic Corp. (collectively "Mosel"), Infineon Technology AG and Infineon Technology

North America Corp. (collectively "Infineon"), Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix

Semiconductor America Inc. (collectively "Hynix"), Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron

Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively "Micron"), and Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida

Joint Stip. and [Proposed] Order Re Timing of Plaintiffs' Resp. To Intern Case No. C 06-4333 PJH

1

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 258 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

13

14

15

16

17

28

Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively "Elpida"), engaged in meet-and-confer communications

regarding the timing of Plaintiff States' responses to Defendants' contention interrogatories and

contention interrogatory-like requests for production of documents. By and through their

counsel, the parties jointly submit this stipulation resulting from the meet-and-confer regarding

the timing of Plaintiffs States' responses to contention interrogatories and contentioninterrogatory-like. By way of illustration, these contention interrogatories and requests include,

but are not limited to, the following:

1. Nanya's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production,

served June 13, 2007 (Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10-17, 20-24 & Request No. 1);

2. Mosel's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production, June

14, 2007 (Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 8-13 & Request Nos. 5-8);

3. Infineon's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production,

served June 15, 2007 (Interrogatory Nos. 1-25 & Request No. 37);

4. Hynix's First Set of Interrogatories, served April 20, 2007, Second Set of

Interrogatories, served June 15, 2007, and First, Second, and Third Set of Requests for

Production, served April 20, 2007 (Interrogatory Nos. 16-17, 24-25 & Request Nos. 59 and 77);

5. Elpida's First, Second, and Third Set of Interrogatories, served June 15, 2007,

First and Second Requests for Production, served April 27, 2007, and Third Set of Requests for

Production, served June 15, 2007 (Interrogatory Nos. 1-5, 8-9, 19-23 & Request Nos. 44, 51-53,

55-56, 58-59) 1 ;

6. Micron's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, served March 7,

2007 (Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, & 12-14); and

7. Any interrogatories or requests to which Plaintiff States or Plaintiff the State of

New York have already objected to as being a premature contention interrogatory.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties and their counsel, subject to

1. Nothing in this stipulation shall alter Plaintiff States' obligations with respect to Plaintiff

States' and Elpida's Joint Stipulation and Order Re Timing of Plaintiff States' Responses to Class

Certification Interrogatories that this Court ordered on September 7, 2007.

Joint Stip. and [Proposed] Order Re Timing of Plaintiffs' Resp. To Interr. Case No. C 06-4333 PJH

2

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 258 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

27

28

the approval of the Court, that the Plaintiff States shall serve responses to Defendants' contention

interrogatories and contention-like-requests for production of documents, thirty (30) days before

the date set for service of the non-class certification expert reports, with the following exception:

a. The amount of the Plaintiff States' claim for damages 2 ;

b. All calculations supporting the amount of the Plaintiff States' claim for damages;

and

c. Any documents, data or other information generated by the Plaintiffs States'

experts as expert work product in the course of calculating the Plaintiff States' claim for damages

or otherwise in preparing their reports, subject to the guidelines set forth in the Stipulation and

Order Regarding Procedures Governing Expert Discovery, entered on June 26, 2007 in State of

California v. Infineon Technologies AG, C 06-4333 PJH.

2. The parties also agree that certain interrogatories on the amount of damages - including Hynix

Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23 and similar ones asserted by other defendants - will be answered

at the same time as the non-class certification expert report, subject to Plaintiffs' existing

objections.

Joint Stip. and [Proposed] Order Re Timing of Plaintiffs' Resp. To Interr. Case No. C 06-4333 PJH

3

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 258 Filed 10/30/07 Page 3 of 5
5

6

7

The information, data, and documents specified in (a), (b), and (c) will be provided to

Defendants concurrent with service of the Plaintiff States' non-class certification expert report in

both actions. All responses shall be substantive and provided in the form contemplated by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff States' may continue to assert existing objections and

will provide responses consistent with said objections in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiff States' may not assert new objections.

Dated: October 26, 2007

EDMUND G. BROWN JR. ANDREW CUOMO

Attorney General of the State of California Attorney General of the State of New York

THOMAS GREENE JAY L. HIMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General RICHARD L. SCHWARTZ

KATHLEEN E. FOOTE JEREMY R. KASHA

NICOLE GORDON

SANGEETHA RAGHUNATHAN

EMILIO E. VARANINI

/S/ /S/

EMILIO E. VARANINI RICHARD L. SCHWARTZ

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiff States Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York

KENNETH R. O'ROURKE

MICHAEL F. TUBACH

STEVEN H. BERGMAN

JANE Y. CHANG

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

400 South Hope Street

Los Angeles, CA 90071

IS/

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

Joint Stip. and [Proposed] Order Re Timing of Plaintiffs' Resp. To Interr. Case No. C 06-4333 PJH

4

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 258 Filed 10/30/07 Page 4 of 5
1 ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October , 2007

6 JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

7

28

Joint Stip. and [Proposed] Order Re Timing of Plaintiffs' Resp. To Interr. Case No. C 06-4333 PJH

5

29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 258 Filed 10/30/07 Page 5 of 5