Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06436/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06436-27/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 

LA2:859356.2

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE (S.B. #120144)

korourke@omm.com 

STEVEN H. BERGMAN (S.B. #180542)

sbergman@omm.com 

JANE Y. CHANG (S.B. #241890)

jchang@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

400 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 

Telephone: (213) 430-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 

MICHAEL F. TUBACH (S.B. #145955)

mtubach@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

275 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC. and 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

Master File No. M-02-1486 PJH 

MDL. No. 1486 

Case No. C 06-6436 PJH 

Assigned for all purposes to the 

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DATE TO 

PLAINTIFF THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK’S AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 4:06-cv-06436-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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 

LA2:859356.2 JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

Plaintiff the State of New York and Defendants Elpida Memory, Inc. and 

Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively “Elpida”), Infineon Technologies AG and 

Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (collectively “Infineon”), Hynix 

Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (collectively “Hynix”), 

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

“Micron”), Mosel Vitelic Inc. and Mosel Vitelic Corp. (collectively “Mosel”), Nanya 

Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp. USA (collectively "Nanya"), and NEC 

Electronics America, Inc., by and through their counsel, jointly submit this stipulation 

regarding Defendants’ response, whether by answer or motion, to Plaintiff the State of 

New York’s Amended Complaint filed with the Court on October 1, 2007. 

WHEREAS, the Court issued an order on April 15, 2008 denying 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; and 

WHEREAS, the Defendants’ response, whether by answer or motion, to 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is currently due on April 29, 2008. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, by and 

between their counsel and subject to Court approval, that without waiving the right to 

assert any and all defenses available to Defendants, Defendants will respond, whether by 

answer or motion, to the Amended Complaint by May 13, 2008. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:06-cv-06436-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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 

LA2:859356.2 JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

Dated: April 28, 2008 

ANDREW CUOMO 

Attorney General of the State of New York 

JAY L. HIMES 

RICHARD L. SCHWARTZ 

JEREMY R. KASHA 

By: /s/ Richard L. Schwartz

 Richard L. Schwartz 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE. 

MICHAEL F. TUBACH 

STEVEN H. BERGMAN 

JANE Y. CHANG 

By: /s/ Steven H. Bergman

 Steven H. Bergman 

Attorneys for Hynix Semiconductor Inc. 

and Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. 

and, for purposes of this stipulation only, 

signing with permission of all other 

defendants

ATTESTATION OF FILING

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 § X(B), I hereby attest that I have obtained 

concurrence in the filing of this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding 

Defendants’ Response Date to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint from all of the parties 

listed in the signature blocks above. 

By: /s/ Steven H. Bergman

 Steven H. Bergman 

Case 4:06-cv-06436-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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 

LA2:859356.2 JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER; 

CASE NO. C 06-6436 PJH; MDL NO. 1486 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby orders that 

Defendants respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, by answer or by motion, by May 

13, 2008. 

Dated: April ____, 2008 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Court Judge 

MAY 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:06-cv-06436-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/02/08 Page 4 of 4