Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-74/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 ADMINISTRATIVE

This Document Relates To: MOTION TO RELATE CASES

ALL ACTIONS

This Document Also Relates To:

Sun Microsystems v. Hynix et al. (C 06-1665 PJH)

Unisys Corp. v. Hynix et al. (C 06-2915 PJH)

Honeywell Int’l v. Hynix et al. (C 06-2917 PJH)

State of California et al. v. Infineon AG et al. (C 06-4333 PJH) 

State of New York v. Micron et al. (C 06-6436 PJH)

______________________________/

Before the court is a joint administrative motion filed by plaintiffs and defendants in

actions other than those listed above, seeking to relate twelve cases recently filed in this

district to the In re DRAM litigation currently pending before this court. The newly filed

cases purportedly concern many of the same parties and similar allegations as the In re

DRAM cases, although they are based on a different product – static random access

memory (“SRAM”).

As the parties note in their motion, however, the newly filed cases are presently the

subject of a request for consolidation before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

(“JPML”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. That request specifically seeks to consolidate all

SRAM cases in this district, whether filed here or in other districts originally. 

Until the JPML reaches a decision on that request, this court cannot know for sure

whether the twelve newly filed cases will be consolidated for multidistrict litigation purposes,

and whether, if so, they will be consolidated for pretrial purposes in this district. 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1168 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

Accordingly, until the JPML issues its decision on the request pending before it, this court

will not issue a decision whether to relate the newly filed cases or not. The court at this

juncture therefore DENIES the parties’ administrative motion to relate the newly filed cases

without prejudice. The parties are free to file a renewed administrative motion, once the

JPML has issued a ruling on the matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1168 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2