Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01826/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01826-16/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNITS

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

 /

This Order Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. C 06-07417 WHA

MDL No. 1826

ORDER RE QUARTERLY

REPORTS OF INTERIM

COUNSEL

With respect to the quarterly reports by interim counsel, starting with the next report,

please include as well a summary that identifies the timekeeper, the timekeeper’s position

(partner, associate, contract lawyer, summer associate, law school intern, paralegal, college

intern) and their billing rate. If more than one firm has done work, then please organize the

information by firm. In this way, the Court can more easily see who is putting in the greatest

hours. This summary does not need to repeat the individual work entries, although a brief

summary of the work done by the individual would be useful. This is in addition to the

item-by-item entries, which are also useful.

The format used by the indirect purchasers fails to break down the time by individual

and item-by-item entries. In the future, please include the item-by-item entries (please see the

format used by the direct purchasers). So, going forward, please include an item-by-item

breakdown and the summary described above. 

Case 3:07-md-01826-WHA Document 172 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The recent reports do not have to be redone. But for the next quarterly report, please go

back and include all time since the appointment of interim counsel in the format requested. 

In reviewing the indirect report, the Court has become concerned with the vast number

of firms logging time to the case, as set forth in Exhibit A. Mr. Lehmann is requested to submit

under seal for in camera review an explanation of why so many firms have been included in his

interim counsel report. Please do this by JULY 31, 2007, AT NOON. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-md-01826-WHA Document 172 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2