Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06533/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06533-1/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING 

 Case No.: C-06-6533 SI 

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 

SF: 85713-6 

ANITA F. STORK (SBN 142265) 

JAMES R. ATWOOD (SBN 044798) 

TARA M. STEELEY (SBN 231775) 

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 

One Front Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 591-6000 

Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 

astork@cov.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Integrated Device 

Technology, Inc. 

[Additional Counsel and Parties Appear at 

End] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RECLAIM CENTER, INC.; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

Civil Case No.: C-06-6533 SI 

MDL 1819 (pending) 

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING 

PENDING DECISION BY JUDICIAL 

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT 

LITIGATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2 of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California, the following parties hereby stipulate to a stay of the 

proceeding for the following good cause: 

1. At least 49 complaints have been filed to date in federal district courts by 

plaintiffs bringing class actions on behalf of either direct or indirect purchasers alleging price 

Case 3:06-cv-06533-SI Document 45 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 4:06-cv-06533-CW Document 47 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 4
-2-

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING 

Case No.: C-06-6533 SI 

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 

fixing by manufacturers of Static Random Access Memory (“SRAM”) (collectively, the 

“SRAM cases”). 

2. There is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

(“JPML”) a request pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 to consolidate in this district the SRAM cases 

filed here and in other districts nationwide. 

3. On December 14, 2006, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session stating 

that the request to consolidate the SRAM cases will be heard by the JPML on January 25, 2007 

(MDL 1819). 

4. The parties agree that, at some point subsequent to that hearing, the JPML is 

likely to grant the transfer and coordination or consolidation request. 

5. In light of the pending request before the JPML, Plaintiffs and Defendants 

Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. stipulated on November 13, 

2006 to extend the time for these Defendants to respond to the Complaint in the abovecaptioned action to the earlier of the following two dates: (1) thirty days after the filing of a 

Consolidated Amended Complaint in the SRAM cases; or (2) thirty days after Plaintiffs provide 

written notice that they do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided that 

such notice may be given only at or after the initial case management conference in the MDL 

transferee court in this case. All other defendants in this case, including Integrated Device 

Technology, Inc., joined in that Stipulation. There have not been any other time modifications 

in this case. 

6. Anticipating a decision by the JPML, two courts in this district have already 

denied a series of administrative motions to consider whether certain SRAM cases should be 

related. These courts denied all of these motions without prejudice to renewal following the 

resolution of the proceedings before the JPML. See Dataplex, Inc. v. Alliance Semiconductor 

Corp., et. al, No. 06-6491 CW (12/14/06 Order of Judge Wilken) (Document 13 in 06-6511 

EDL); see also In re DRAM Litigation, No. M02-1486 PJH (11/15/06 Order of Judge 

Hamilton). 

Case 3:06-cv-06533-SI Document 45 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 4:06-cv-06533-CW Document 47 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 4
-3-

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING 

Case No.: C-06-6533 SI 

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 

7. Given the January 25, 2007 hearing date for MDL 1819, the dates set forth in 

the Case Management Scheduling Order filed October 18, 2006, including deadlines imposed 

by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, Local Rule 16, and ADR Local Rule 3.5, will come to 

pass before the JPML acts on the pending request. 

8. District Courts possess the authority to issue stays pending JPML 

consideration of motions for transfer and consolidation. See, e.g., Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte 

Produce, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“The decision to grant or deny a 

temporary stay of proceedings pending a ruling on the transfer of [a] matter to the MDL court 

lies within this Court’s discretion.”) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 

(1936)); see also Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) 

(“Courts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to 

transfer a case.”). 

9. A stay pending the JPML’s resolution of the MDL motion would promote 

judicial efficiency, allow consistency in pretrial rulings, and be most convenient to the parties, 

including the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action. 

Case 3:06-cv-06533-SI Document 45 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 4:06-cv-06533-CW Document 47 Filed 12/22/06 Page 3 of 4
-4-

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING 

Case No.: C-06-6533 SI 

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 

10. Accordingly, the parties hereby STIPULATE to and respectfully request the 

Court to VACATE its Case Management Scheduling Order filed October 18, 2006 and to 

STAY this action pending the JPML’s resolution of the MDL motion. 

DATED: December 21, 2006 Respectfully submitted: 

 

 By: /s/ Tara M. Steeley 

DATED: December 21, 2006 

Anita F. Stork 

James R. Atwood 

Tara M. Steeley 

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant Integrated 

Device Technology, Inc. 

Respectfully submitted: 

 By: /s/ Matthew R. Schultz 

Francis O. Scarpulla 

Craig C. Corbitt 

Judith A. Zahid 

Matthew R. Schultz 

ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL, 

MASON & GETTE LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________ 

 

 ____________________________ 

 The Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-06533-SI Document 45 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 4 of 4
 Case 4:06-cv-06533-CW Document 47 Filed 12/22/06 Page 4 of 4