Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819-67/pdf.json

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

---

1

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE REGARDING CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHI-MITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Case No. M:07-cv-01819 CW; MDL No. 1819 

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

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

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

FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA (41059) 

CRAIG C. CORBITT (83251) 

CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI (136446) 

JANE YI (257893) 

ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 693-0700 

Facsimile: (415) 693-0770

fscarpulla@zelle.com

ccorbitt@zelle.com 

Lead and Liaison Counsel for 

Indirect Purchaser Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE STATIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (SRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Case No. M:07-CV-01819-CW 

MDL No. 1819 

AMENDED ORDER APPROVING 

PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE 

REGARDING CLASS ACTION AND 

PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND 

GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHIMITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Hearing Date: June 3, 2010 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

The Court, upon noticed motion and hearing, having reviewed each of the Settlement 

Agreements (“the Settlements”) entered into between Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, on behalf of 

themselves and the Class, with each of the following Defendants (collectively the “Settling 

Defendants”): 

(a) Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively 

“Micron”); 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1011 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 6
 

2

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE REGARDING CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHI-MITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Case No. M:07-cv-01819 CW; MDL No. 1819 

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

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

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

(b) Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (collectively 

“Hynix”); 

(c) Renesas Technology Corp., Renesas Technology America, Inc. (collectively 

“Renesas”), Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Semiconductor (America), Inc., (collectively “Hitachi”), 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, and Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively 

“Mitsubishi”) (together “Renesas-Hitachi-Mitsubishi”); 

(d) Etron Technology, Inc. and Etron Technology America, Inc. (collectively “Etron”); 

(e) Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. 

(“Toshiba”); and 

(f) NEC Electronics Corporation and NEC Electronics America, Inc. (collectively 

“NEC”); hereby ORDERS that: 

1. For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise set forth herein, the Court adopts 

and incorporates the definitions contained in each of the Settlements; 

2. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, 

the Court provisionally certifies the following settlement class (the “Settlement Class”): 

All persons and entities residing in the United States who, from 

November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006, purchased SRAM in 

the United States indirectly from Defendants. The class excludes the 

following persons and entities: the Defendants; the officers, directors 

or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant 

has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or 

assign of any Defendant; any federal, state or local entities; and any 

judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of her 

immediate family and judicial staff. 1

 3. The Court further provisionally finds that the prerequisites to a class action under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied for settlement purposes in that: 

(a) there are thousands of class members and therefore joinder of all members is 

impracticable; 

 

1

 The definition of SRAM in each of the Settlement Agreements includes “Pseudo SRAM” or 

“PSRAM.” 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1011 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 6
 

3

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE REGARDING CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHI-MITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Case No. M:07-cv-01819 CW; MDL No. 1819 

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

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

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

(b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over 

individual issues; 

(c) the claims or defenses of the class plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of 

the class; and 

(d) the class plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and 

have retained counsel experienced in complex antitrust class action litigation who have and will 

continue to adequately represent the class. 

4. The Court finds that each of the Settlements agreed to by the parties (as set forth in 

the Settlements) falls within the range of possible approval to justify sending and publishing notice 

of the Settlement to Settlement Class members and scheduling final approval proceedings. 

5. The Court hereby preliminarily approves each of the Settlements, subject to a 

hearing on the final approval of the Settlements (the “Fairness Hearing”). 

6. The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(e) on September 30, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. The Fairness Hearing will be held to 

determine the following: 

(a) Whether each of the proposed Settlements is fair, adequate and reasonable and 

should be granted final approval by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); 

(b) Whether a final judgment should be entered dismissing the claims of the Settlement 

Class against the Settling Defendants with prejudice as required by each of the Settlements; and 

(c) Such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. 

7. Gilardi & Co. shall serve as Settlement Administrator and its sister company, 

Larkspur Design Group shall implement the notice plan. 

8. The Court, having provisionally certified the Settlement Class, and having certified 

a nationwide plaintiff class and state plaintiff classes for litigation purposes in this Court’s 

November 25, 2009 Order (the “Litigation Class”), directs that one notice be issued to all members 

of the Settlement and Litigation classes informing them of the Settlements and informing them of 

the Litigation Class proceeding to trial. Allowing one notice will eliminate the possibility of 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1011 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 6
 

4

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE REGARDING CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHI-MITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Case No. M:07-cv-01819 CW; MDL No. 1819 

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

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

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

confusion in two simultaneous and overlapping notices and will avoid unnecessary and duplicative 

expenses. 

 9. Both the Settlement and Litigation classes consist of individuals and entities who 

indirectly purchased SRAM from Defendants during the relevant time period. The Defendants 

have previously indicated that they do not possess lists of the members of certified classes. There 

does not exist through reasonable efforts any comprehensive list of individual class members that 

would enable mailed notice directly to each class member. Therefore the Court finds that notice 

by publication is the most appropriate manner in providing notice to both classes. Nevertheless, 

mailed notice shall also be made to the potential indirect purchasers of SRAM identified by 

Plaintiffs and their Settlement Administrator in their preliminary approval papers (hereinafter the 

“Direct Mail Recipients”). Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed notice plan outlined in the 

Declaration of Dennis Gilardi Re Dissemination of Notice to Class Members (the “Notice Plan”), 

and are authorized to utilize up to $1.15 million of the Settlement Funds to administer and 

disseminate class notice pursuant to the Notice Plan to the Settlement and Litigation classes. 

10. By June 18, 2010, a Long Form Notice substantially in the form attached hereto as 

Exhibit B shall be sent by the Settlement Administrator via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

to the Direct Mail Recipients, and shall be made available on a website entitled 

www.indirectsramcase.com. The Long Form Notice shall also be sent to all class members who 

request written notice. 

11. By June 11, 2010, Plaintiffs shall commence the published notice program. By 

July 13, 2010, Plaintiffs shall publish a Summary Notice substantially in the form attached hereto 

as Exhibit A in national newspapers and journals, and on the internet, pursuant to the Notice Plan. 

In addition, Plaintiffs shall provide notice on the above-described website and on the websites of 

class counsel. 

12. The Court finds that this manner of giving notice fully satisfies the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under 

the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1011 Filed 06/10/10 Page 4 of 6
 

5

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE REGARDING CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHI-MITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Case No. M:07-cv-01819 CW; MDL No. 1819 

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

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

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

13. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall file, not later than September 3, 2010, proof of 

compliance with paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Order. 

14. Each class member shall have the right to be excluded from the Settlement Class or 

from the Litigation Class by mailing a request for exclusion regarding each such class from which 

exclusion is sought to the Settlement Administrator not later than August 17, 2010. Requests for 

exclusion must be postmarked on or before August 17, 2010, in writing and set forth the name and 

address of the person or entity who wishes to be excluded, as well as all trade names or business 

names and addresses used by such person or entity, and must be signed by the class member 

seeking exclusion. By September 3, 2010, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall file with the Court a list of all 

persons who have timely requested exclusion from any of the classes. 

15. Any class member who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the 

Settlement Class shall, upon final approval of the Settlements, be bound by all terms and 

provisions of the Settlement so approved, including but not limited to the releases, waivers, and 

covenants described in the Settlement, whether or not such person or entity objected to the 

Settlement and whether or not such person or entity made a claim upon the settlement funds. 

16. As provided by the Notice, each class member who does not timely exclude itself 

from the Settlement Class shall have the right to object to the Settlements by filing written 

objections with the Court not later than August 17, 2010, copies of which shall be served on all 

counsel listed in the Class Notice. Failure to timely file and serve written objections will preclude 

a class member from objecting at the Fairness Hearing. 

17. All briefs, memoranda, and supporting papers in support of final approval of the 

Settlements shall be filed not later than September 3, 2010. 

18. All further class proceedings as to the Settling Defendants are hereby stayed except 

for any actions required to effectuate the Settlements. 

19. For purposes of providing notice of the proposed Settlements to the appropriate 

State and Federal officials pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the 

Settlements are deemed filed as of the date of this Order. 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1011 Filed 06/10/10 Page 5 of 6
 

6

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE REGARDING CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS 

(MICRON, HYNIX, RENESAS-HITACHI-MITSUBISHI, ETRON, TOSHIBA, NEC) 

Case No. M:07-cv-01819 CW; MDL No. 1819 

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

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

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

20. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over this action to consider all further 

matters arising out of or connected with the Settlements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated June 10, 2010 __________________________________ 

 Honorable Claudia Wilken 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Oakland Division 

3221388.1 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1011 Filed 06/10/10 Page 6 of 6