Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07808/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07808-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1701289.1 1 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed] 

Order C-06-07808 JSW

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Charles H. Samel (SBN 182019) 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, California 90071-2007 

Telephone: (213) 485-1234 

Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 

Email: charles.samel@lw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI Technologies ULC and 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELIE MIZRAHI, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

Defendants.

Case No. C-06-07808 JSW 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Elie Mizrahi (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Nvidia Corporation (“Nvidia”), 

ATI Technologies ULC and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (collectively “AMD”) hereby jointly 

request the Court to continue the initial case management conference and related deadlines in 

this action as follows. 

1. On December 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action 

(“Complaint”), which alleges claims under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff 

styled the Complaint as a putative class action. 

Case 3:06-cv-07808-JSW Document 9 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07808-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1701289.1 2 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07808 JSW

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. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 42 other complaints have been 

filed in this and other judicial districts. All of these complaints also allege federal and/or state 

law antitrust claims against Nvidia and AMD and are styled as putative class actions. 

3. On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs in some of the other actions pending in 

this district filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML” or 

“Panel”) to transfer and consolidate in this judicial district all existing and subsequently filed 

antitrust actions related to the claims alleged in the Complaint (“JPML Motion”). The JPML 

Motion is currently pending in In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation, MDL 

Docket No. 1826. 

4. On January 16, 2007, AMD and Nvidia filed a response with the JPML 

supporting consolidation and transfer of these actions to the Northern District of California, San 

Jose Division, or, in the alternative, in the Northern District of California, San Francisco 

Division. To date, every party responding to the JPML Motion has supported consolidation and 

transfer. No party has opposed consolidation and transfer. 

5. Oral argument on the JPML Motion is scheduled for March 29, 2007 in 

San Antonio, Texas. The parties agree that, at some point subsequent to that hearing, the JPML 

is likely to order transfer and consolidation of these actions. 

6. In light of these facts, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated on December 22, 

2006 to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint to 30 days after (1) the order 

resolving the JPML motion and (2) the filing and service of any subsequent consolidated 

complaint, without prejudice to the right of Nvidia or AMD to seek additional time to answer or 

otherwise respond to the Complaint for good cause shown. 

7. Given the March 29, 2007 hearing date before the JPML, the dates set 

forth in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines entered on 

December 20, 2006 (the “December 20 Order”), including the deadlines imposed by Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 26, Local Rule 16, and ADR Local Rule 3.5, will come to pass either 

before or at about the same time the JPML acts on the pending motion. 

Case 3:06-cv-07808-JSW Document 9 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07808-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1701289.1 3 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07808 JSW

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 

8. Continuing the dates set forth in the December 20 Order would avoid the 

expenditure of unnecessary judicial resources until it is determined whether this action will 

remain pending in this Court. It would also ensure consistency in pretrial rulings and be 

convenient for the parties, including Plaintiff. 

9. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that 

the Court order a continuance of the dates set forth in the December 20 Order. The affected 

dates include (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR 

process selection, and discovery plan (currently April 6, 2007); (2) file joint ADR documents 

(currently April 6, 2007); (3) complete initial disclosures and file the Case Management 

Statement and Rule 26(f) Report (currently April 20, 2007); and (4) the Initial Case Management 

Conference (currently April 27, 2007). 

10. The parties request that the Court continue the above referenced schedule 

as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR 

process selection, and discovery plan – June 8, 2007; (2) file joint ADR documents – June 8, 

2007; (3) complete initial disclosures and file the Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) 

Report – June 22, 2007; and (4) the Initial Case Management Conference – June 29, 2007 at 1:30 

p.m. Such a continuance will allow this matter to move forward promptly in the event that the 

JPML Motion is denied and further proceedings before this Court are necessary. 

11. Except as described in Paragraph 6, the parties have sought no previous 

modification of the timing of any event or deadline set by the Court. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

///

Case 3:06-cv-07808-JSW Document 9 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 3 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07808-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1701289.1 4 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07808 JSW

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 

12. The parties agree to notify the Court promptly when the Panel rules on the JPML Motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Dated: March 26, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: March 26, 2007 Dated: March 26, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP SCHUBERT & REED LLP 

By: /s/ James Donato By: /s/ Aaron H. Darsky 

 James Donato (146140) Aaron H. Darsky (212229) 

Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NVIDIA CORPORATION ELIE MIZRAHI 

 

Case 3:06-cv-07808-JSW Document 9 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 4 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07808-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1701289.1 5 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07808 JSW

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 

FILER’S ATTESTATION: 

 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of 

perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories. 

Dated: March 26, 2007 

 By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel 

Case 3:06-cv-07808-JSW Document 9 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 5 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07808-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1701289.1 6 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07808 JSW

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all dates set forth in the December 20, 

2006 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines are hereby 

continued as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, 

ADR process selection, and discovery plan will be June 8, 2007; (2) the deadline to file joint 

ADR documents will be June 8, 2007; (3) the deadline to complete initial disclosures and file the 

Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report will be June 22, 2007; and (4) the Initial 

Case Management Conference will be on June 29, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. The parties are ordered to 

notify the Court promptly when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules upon the 

motion for consolidation pending in MDL Docket No. 1826, In re Graphics Processing Units 

Antitrust Litigation. 

Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered. 

Dated: __________________ 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

Case 3:06-cv-07808-JSW Document 9 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 6 of 6

April 3, 2007

Case 3:06-cv-07808-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/03/07 Page 6 of 6