Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-75/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 RE STIPULATION

This Document Relates to: AND PROPOSED ORDER RE

DISCOVERY

All Indirect Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

On November 14, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order regarding

the discovery schedule in effect in the indirect purchaser actions. The proposed order

seeks to extend the discovery cut-off date from October 31, 2006 to November 30, 2006,

for all “discovery noticed prior to October 3, 2006.” The proposed order also provides that

the parties may take additional depositions prior to November 30, 2006, and that the parties

will have until January 31, 2007, and March 2, 2007, to respond to certain propounded

discovery. The parties seek the assigned Magistrate Judge’s approval for the stipulation

and proposed order. 

Preliminarily, the court reminds the parties that any proposed order that seeks to

alter case management or pretrial deadlines established by the court must be submitted to

the trial judge for signature. Furthermore, the court’s August 29, 2006 case management

order specifically stated that the October 31, 2006 discovery cut-off date would remain in

place, given the parties’ failure to demonstrate good cause for an extension. The court

approved only a slight modification in the pretrial schedule, so that defendants’ motions for

judgment on the pleadings may be heard and decided prior to the filing of plaintiffs’ motion

for class certification. 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1169 Filed 11/15/06 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

The court is not inclined to grant the parties’ belated request for an order extending

the discovery cut-off date, and establishing discovery response deadlines that would

effectively extend the discovery period by more than 4 months. The court’s disinclination is

even stronger, if the parties intend to rely on any discovery affected by the proposed order

in connection with the upcoming class certification motion, as this would effectively mean

that the class certification motion would not be filed prior to March 2007, at the earliest. 

This is not what the court’s prior case management order contemplated. 

As such, the court DENIES the parties’ proposed order requesting extension of the

discovery cut-off date, as currently written. To the extent that the parties feel that alteration

of the pretrial discovery deadline is necessary, the parties may present their arguments at

the hearing on defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, set for December 6,

2006, and the court will address the issue then. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1169 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2