Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00086/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00086-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE FLASH MEMORY 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

 

No. C 07-0086 SBA

ORDER PERMITTING INTERVENTION

Before the Court is the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division’s (DOJ) motion

to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2) [Docket No. 93]. After reading and

considering the arguments presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution

without a hearing. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the DOJ’s

unopposed motion to intervene.

The Court has recently consolidated numerous cases alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,

or stabilize the prices of, or allocate the market for, Flash Memory, resulting in Flash Memory prices

to be higher than they otherwise would have been. See Docket No. 194. Most of these cases asserts

causes of action under section 1 of the Sherman Act; the California Cartwright Act; the California

Unfair Competition Law; and Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws of the various States. 

 The DOJ declares that “The Antitrust Division is conducting a criminal investigation into the

Flash Memory industry. The investigation includes conduct alleged in these Flash civil suits.” Docket

No. 94 (Cousins Decl.). The DOJ states that “a grand jury has been empaneled in this judicial district

investigating criminal violations that include common questions of fact with the facts alleged in these

civil cases.” Docket No. 93. Accordingly, it “moves under Rule 24(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for an order to intervene in this civil action for the purpose of limiting certain discovery

during an ongoing criminal grand jury investigation.” Id. No party has opposed this request. The

defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition. Numerous individual plaintiffs have likewise filed

statements of non-opposition. 

Case 4:07-cv-00086-SBA Document 212 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

LEGAL STANDARDS

There are three necessary prerequisites for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 24(b)(2): (1) the applicant must show independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion

must be timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, must have a question of

law or a question of fact in common. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court---Northern

Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d

1297, 1308 (9th Cir. 1997). A district court’s discretion to grant or deny permissive intervention is

broad, and includes the discretion to limit intervention to particular issues or for limited purposes. See

San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1100; Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 497 F.2d 180, 181 (9th Cir.

1974).

Based upon the declaration of Nathanael M. Cousins, there is reason to believe that the DOJ’s

criminal investigation involves common questions of fact with the consolidated action of In re Flash

Memory Antitrust Litigation, 07-0086 SBA. The government has intervened for the purpose of limiting

discovery in other civil cases similar to this one. See, e.g., In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM)

Antitrust Litigation, 07-1819 CW; In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 07-1827 SI; In re

Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, 02-1486 PJH. In fact, it appears well

established that the government may intervene in a civil action for the purpose of limiting discovery

when there is a parallel criminal proceeding involving a common question of law or fact. See Bureerong

v. Uvaswas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 86 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing cases); see also Ashworth v. Albers Med., Inc.,

229 F.R.D. 527, 529 (S.D.W. Va. 2005); Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Mutuals.com, 2004 WL

1629929, at *1-*2 (N.D. Tex. 2004). The DOJ’s motion is timely. Discovery has not yet commenced,

nor has there been an initial case management conference. 

Accordingly, the DOJ’s motion to intervene [Docket No. 93] is GRANTED. The United States

of America, through the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, is permitted to intervene

in this action for the purpose of seeking to limit discovery. The parties and the Clerk of Court are

instructed to add the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to the service list. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:07-cv-00086-SBA Document 212 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

October 22, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00086-SBA Document 212 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 3