Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-73/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

_______________________________/

SECOND ORDER RE PAGE LIMIT

This Document Relates to: RE OPPOSITION TO NANYA

DEFENDANTS’ DISPOSITIVE

All Direct Purchaser Actions MOTIONS

_______________________________/

Before the court is a letter filed today by counsel for the direct purchaser plaintiffs,

requesting that the court reconsider its prior order regarding the page limitations applicable

to plaintiffs’ proposed opposition briefs in response to the Nanya defendants’ summary

judgment motions. Plaintiffs now seek to file one consolidated opposition brief no less than

45 pages in length. 

After reviewing counsel’s request, the court remains unpersuaded that good cause

exists for plaintiffs to file one 45 page opposition brief (which is not significantly less than

the 50 page limit rejected by the court in its prior order). Given the number of motions filed

by all the parties, it is simply more efficient for the court to review two regular opposition

briefs of normal length filed in response to two opening briefs. As the court previously

stated, it would be inclined to allow plaintiffs to file a consolidated and extended opposition

brief, only if doing so would provide a significant advantage to the court in terms of

efficiency. Whereas a 35 page opposition brief would provide such an advantage, a 45

page opposition brief would not. Nor is there any reason submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel

that convinces the court otherwise. Accordingly, the court’s prior order stands. 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1161 Filed 11/13/06 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

Plaintiffs are limited to the filing of either (a) two regular length opposition briefs; or (b) one

35 page opposition brief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1161 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2