Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00718/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00718-0/pdf.json

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

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1707842.1 1 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed] 

Order C-07-00718 EDL

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Charles H. Samel (SBN 182019) 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, California 90071-2007 

Telephone: (213) 485-1234 

Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 

Email: charles.samel@lw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI Technologies ULC and 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH SALAZAR, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

Defendants.

Case No. C-07-00718 EDL 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Joseph Salazar (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Nvidia Corporation 

(“Nvidia”), ATI Technologies ULC and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (collectively “AMD”) 

hereby jointly request the Court to continue the initial case management conference and related 

deadlines in this action as follows. 

1. On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action 

(“Complaint”), which alleges claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 and 

pendant state law claims. Plaintiff styled the Complaint as a putative class action. 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1707842.1 2 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-07-00718 EDL

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. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 46 other complaints have been 

filed in this and other judicial districts. All of these complaints also allege federal and/or state 

law antitrust claims against Nvidia and AMD and are styled as putative class actions. 

3. On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs in some of the other actions pending in 

this district filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML” or 

“Panel”) to transfer and consolidate in this judicial district all existing and subsequently filed 

antitrust actions related to the claims alleged in the Complaint (“JPML Motion”). The JPML 

Motion is currently pending in In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation, MDL 

Docket No. 1826. 

4. On January 16, 2007, AMD and Nvidia filed a response with the JPML 

supporting consolidation and transfer of these actions to the Northern District of California, San 

Jose Division, or, in the alternative, in the Northern District of California, San Francisco 

Division. To date, every party responding to the JPML Motion has supported consolidation and 

transfer and no party has opposed it. 

5. Oral argument on the JPML Motion was held on March 29, 2007 in San 

Antonio, Texas. The parties agree that, at some point, the JPML is likely to order transfer and 

consolidation of these actions. 

6. In light of these facts, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated in February 2007 

to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint to 30 days after (1) the order 

resolving the JPML motion and (2) the filing and service of any subsequent consolidated 

complaint, without prejudice to the right of Nvidia or AMD to seek additional time to answer or 

otherwise respond to the Complaint for good cause shown. 

7. Given the March 29, 2007 hearing date before the JPML, the dates set 

forth in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines entered on 

February 2, 2007 (the “February 2 Order”), including the deadlines imposed by Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 26, Local Rule 16, and ADR Local Rule 3.5, will likely come to pass either 

before or at about the same time the JPML acts on the pending motion. 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1707842.1 3 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-07-00718 EDL

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 

8. Continuing the dates set forth in the February 2 Order would avoid the 

expenditure of unnecessary judicial resources until it is determined whether this action will 

remain pending in this Court. It would also ensure consistency in pretrial rulings and be 

convenient for the parties, including Plaintiff. 

9. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that 

the Court order a continuance of the dates set forth in the February 2 Order. The affected dates 

include (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process 

selection, and discovery plan (currently April 17, 2007); (2) file joint ADR documents (currently 

April 17, 2007); (3) complete initial disclosures and file the Case Management Statement and 

Rule 26(f) Report (currently May 1, 2007); and (4) the Initial Case Management Conference 

(currently May 8, 2007). 

10. The parties request that the Court continue the above referenced schedule 

as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR 

process selection, and discovery plan – June 5, 2007; (2) file joint ADR documents – June 5, 

2007; (3) complete initial disclosures and file the Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) 

Report – June 19, 2007; and (4) the Initial Case Management Conference – June 26, 2007. Such 

a continuance will allow this matter to move forward promptly in the event that the JPML 

Motion is denied and further proceedings before this Court are necessary. 

11. Except as described in Paragraph 6, the parties have sought no previous 

modification of the timing of any event or deadline set by the Court. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

///

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1707842.1 4 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-07-00718 EDL

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 

12. The parties agree to notify the Court promptly when the Panel rules on the JPML Motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Dated: April 9, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 Dated: April 9, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP GROSS & BELSKY LLP 

By: /s/ James Donato By: /s/ Adam C. Belsky 

 James Donato (146140) Adam C. Belsky (147800) 

Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NVIDIA CORPORATION JOSEPH SALAZAR 

 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1707842.1 5 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-07-00718 EDL

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 

FILER’S ATTESTATION: 

 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of 

perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 

 By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1707842.1 6 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-07-00718 EDL

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all dates set forth in the December 20, 

2006 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines are hereby 

continued as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, 

ADR process selection, and discovery plan will be June 5, 2007; (2) the deadline to file joint 

ADR documents will be June 5, 2007; (3) the deadline to complete initial disclosures and file the 

Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report will be June 19, 2007; and (4) the Initial 

Case Management Conference will be on June 26, 2007. The parties are ordered to notify the 

Court promptly when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules upon the motion for 

consolidation pending in MDL Docket No. 1826, In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust 

Litigation. 

Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered. 

Dated: __________________ 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte 

April 9, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/09/07 Page 6 of 6