Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819-64/pdf.json

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

---

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PARTIAL 

SETTLEMENTS 

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

FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA (41059) 

CRAIG C. CORBITT (83251) 

CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI (136446) 

JANE YI (257893) 

ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 693-0700 

Facsimile: (415) 693-0770

fscarpulla@zelle.com

ccorbitt@zelle.com 

Lead and Liaison Counsel for 

Indirect Purchaser Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE STATIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (SRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Case No. M:07-CV-01819-CW 

MDL No. 1819 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

TO RESPOND TO INDIRECT 

PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED 

FORMS OF NOTICE OF CLASS 

ACTION AND PARTIAL 

SETTLEMENTS

This Document Relates to: 

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2009, the Court issued an Order Granting Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Denying Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions (Dkt. 

903) (“Order Granting Certification”), wherein the Court certified a nationwide injunctive class of 

indirect purchasers of SRAM pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), as well 

as twenty-seven (27) state classes of indirect purchasers of SRAM seeking damages and/or 

restitution under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); and 

WHEREAS, within thirty days of the Order Granting Certification, Class Counsel for 

Indirect Purchaser (“IP”) Plaintiffs were required to prepare and submit a proposed form of notice to 

be sent to members of the Class, and Defendants were permitted to file any comments to that notice 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 978 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PARTIAL 

SETTLEMENTS 

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

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

within fifteen days thereafter; and 

 WHEREAS, on December 9, 2009, Defendants NEC, Samsung and Cypress filed a petition, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the Court’s Order Granting Certification (the “Petition”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulated and the Court ordered the notice hearing vacated until the 

Ninth Circuit ruled on the Petition (see Dkt. 907); and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the stipulation, IP Plaintiffs were required to submit to the Court a 

proposed form of notice to be sent to class members within 30 days from the date of the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision regarding the Petition; and 

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the Petition; and 

WHEREAS, on March 12, 2010, IP Plaintiffs filed Proposed Forms of Notice Regarding 

Class Action and Partial Settlements (Dkt. 971) (the “Proposed Forms of Notice”); and 

WHEREAS, Defendants are required to respond to IP Plaintiffs’ Proposed Forms of Notice, 

if at all, by March 26, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, IP Plaintiffs are currently discussing the Proposed Forms of Notice with the 

non-settling Defendants, Cypress and Samsung (the “Non-Settling Defendants”) in an attempt to 

informally resolve issues and concerns raised by the Non-Settling Defendants, and the parties require 

more time to consider and discuss these issues; 

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the 

parties identified below, and subject to the Court’s approval, that: 

Defendants shall have until April 2, 2010 to respond to IP Plaintiffs’ Proposed Forms of 

Notice. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 978 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PARTIAL 

SETTLEMENTS 

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

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

Dated: March 25, 2010 By: /s/ Christopher T. Micheletti 

 CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI 

ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL 

 & MASON LLP 

Lead and Liaison Counsel for IndirectPurchaser Class 

Dated: March 25, 2010 

Dated: March 25, 2010 

By: 

By: 

/s/ Michael W. Scarborough 

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH 

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & 

HAMPTON LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., 

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

/s/ Gary A. Winters 

 GARY A. WINTERS 

MAYER BROWN LLP

Attorney for Defendant 

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation 

Additional Defendants and Counsel: 

By /s/ Belinda Lee

BELINDA LEE 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba 

America Electronic Components, Inc. 

By /s/ Matthew S. Leddicotte

MATTHEW S. LEDDICOTTE (pro hac vice) 

WHITE & CASE LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Etron Technology Corporation and Etron 

Technology America, Inc. 

By /s/ Joshua D. N. Hess

JOSHUA D. N. HESS 

GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron 

Semiconductor Products, Inc.

By /s/ Michael F. Tubach

MICHAEL F. TUBACH 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc., and 

Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. 

By /s/ Craig P. Seebald

CRAIG P. SEEBALD (pro hac vice) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Renesas Technology Corp., Renesas 

Technology America, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation, and Mitsubishi Electric & 

Electronics USA, Inc. 

By /s/ Paul Griffin 

PAUL GRIFFIN 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

Attorney for Defendants 

NEC Electronics Corporation and NEC 

Electronics America, Inc. and 

Liaison Counsel for Defendants

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 978 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FORMS OF NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PARTIAL 

SETTLEMENTS 

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

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

I, Christopher T. Micheletti, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that 

the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 

 /s/ Christopher T. Micheletti 

 Christopher T. Micheletti

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 29, 2010 ______________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Northern District of California 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 978 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 4