Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05634/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05634-70/pdf.json

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

---

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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER 

AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Civil Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB-DMR

MDL No. 1913

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND HEARING 

DATE

This Document Relates to:

All Actions

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 848 Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 6
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR 7

Whereas, several Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment arguing that the 

filed rate doctrine precludes damage claims in this Court;

Whereas, Plaintiffs will file responses to those motions;

Whereas, on December 23, 2013, counsel for Defendant China Airlines, Ltd. (“CAL”) and 

Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief in which Plaintiffs seek an order quashing a third-party subpoena 

to the Airline Tariff Publication Co. (“ATPCO”). See Dkt. No. 806.

Whereas, on January 14, 2014, counsel for Defendant All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.

(“ANA”) and Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute concerning whether 

ANA should produce its Chief Executive Officer, Osamu Shinobe, for deposition. See Dkt. No. 

816.

Whereas, on January 15, 2014, counsel for Defendant EVA Airways Corporation

(“EVA”) and Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief in which Plaintiffs request that EVA be ordered to 

provide a further response to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories to EVA, Interrogatory No. 1, 

relating to the filed rate doctrine. See Dkt. No. 819.

Whereas, on January 15, 2014, counsel for Defendant Philippine Airlines Inc. (“PAL”)

and Plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief in which Plaintiffs request that PAL be ordered to provide a 

further response to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories to PAL, Interrogatory No. 1, relating 

to the filed rate doctrine. See Dkt. No. 820.

Whereas, other defendants similarly situated to EVA and PAL in regards to their 

responses to the same interrogatory at issue above have agreed to be bound by the resolution of 

the motions concerning EVA and PAL.

Whereas, the Court set the hearing on these discovery motions for January 28, 2014, at 

1:00 p.m. See Dkt. No. 821.

Whereas the Parties are using their best efforts to complete fact discovery in this matter, 

including depositions, by the fact discovery deadline of January 31, 2014.

Whereas Plaintiffs have entered into stipulations with certain Defendants that, 

notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ and those Defendants’ best efforts, certain of the Parties’ depositions 

may occur after January 31, 2014, for the convenience of the Parties and in the interests of justice.

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 848 Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 6
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR 7

Whereas, to that end, the Parties have scheduled 18 depositions of the Parties and one 

non-party deposition during the last week of January and seven depositions of the Parties during 

the first week of February.

Whereas counsel for Defendant PAL will be in the Philippines during the week of January 

27, 2014, preparing for five depositions scheduled during the week of February 3, 2014. 

Whereas, the Court’s clerk has indicated that the Court has availability on February 13, 

2014, at 3:30 p.m. to hear the motions concerning CAL, EVA, PAL, and ANA.

Whereas, the motions concerning EVA and PAL and the other defendants who are 

similarly situated to EVA and PAL, bear on Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment on the filed rate doctrine.

Whereas, Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motions is presently scheduled for 

February 18th, 2014.

Whereas, Plaintiffs need sufficient time after the resolution of the aforementioned motions 

to respond to the summary judgment motions. 

Now therefore, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for defendants Air New Zealand, ANA, 

Cathay, CAL, EVA, PAL, Qantas and Singapore Airlines hereby stipulate as follows:

In the event that the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and orders EVA and PAL to provide 

further responses to the interrogatory at issue, Plaintiffs’ response to the various summary 

judgment motions shall be due one week after EVA and PAL and any other similarly situated 

defendant provide such supplemental interrogatory answers. In no case, however, shall Plaintiffs’ 

response to the summary judgment motions be due prior to March 3, 2014.

If the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses by EVA and PAL, 

Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motions shall be due on March 3, 2014.

If Plaintiffs do not file a declaration in support of their response to the summary judgment 

motions, Defendants shall file their reply papers within 59 days of Plaintiffs’ response;

If Plaintiffs do file one or more declarations in support of their response to the summary 

judgment motions, Defendants shall file their reply papers on May 1, 2014 or 28 days after the 

last declarant in support of Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motions is deposed, 

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 848 Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 6
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR 7

whichever is later.

The parties shall meet and confer after the filing of Plaintiffs’ response to the summary 

judgment motions regarding deposition dates for any declarants and a hearing date for the 

summary judgment motions.

 

Dated: January 27, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Steven N. Williams

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

Joeseph W. Cotchett

Steven N. Williams

Adam J. Zapala

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Christopher L. Lebsock

HAUSFELD, LLP

Michael D. Hausfeld

Michael P. Lehmann

Christopher L. Lebsock

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Joseph A. Meckes

SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP

Joseph A. Meckes

Counsel for Defendant China Airlines

Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Ankur Kapoor

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 848 Filed 01/30/14 Page 4 of 6
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR 7

CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP

Ankur Kapoor

Counsel for Defendant All Nippon Airways

Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Tammy A. Tsoumas

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Tammy A. Tsoumas

Counsel for Defendant EVA Airways Corporation

Dated: January 27, 2014 By /s/ Deana Cairo

DLA PIPER

Deana Cairo

Counsel for Defendant Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.

Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Todd Miller

BAKER & MILLER PLLC

Todd Miller

Counsel for Qantas Airways Limited

Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Michael Holland

CONDON & FORSYTH LLP

Michael Holland

Counsel for Air New Zealand Limited

Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Willam Sherman

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

William Sherman

Counsel for Singapore Airlines Limited

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 848 Filed 01/30/14 Page 5 of 6
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-05634 CRB-DMR 7

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2014

Charles R. Breyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 848 Filed 01/30/14 Page 6 of 6