Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-54/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

ORDER 

This Document Relates to:

All Direct Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

On September 11, 2006, the court issued an order in response to defendants’ ex

parte application for an order shortening time and corresponding objections to the

magistrate judge’s discovery order regarding the authentication of documents and business

records. The court’s order, in addition to setting an expedited briefing schedule and stating

that the court would decide the matter without a formal hearing, instructed the parties that

all deadlines set forth in the magistrate judge’s ruling shall remain in effect pending the

court’s decision on the matter.

The court is reviewing defendants’ objections, and will attempt to issue an order by

Friday, September 15, 2006. In view of the court’s trial calendar, however, the court may

not reach a determination on the merits of defendants’ objections prior to Monday,

September 18, the deadline for defendants to identify those documents to which they are

unwilling to stipulate with respect to authenticity and/or business records qualification. 

Accordingly, the court hereby revises its prior order, and hereby ORDERS that the

deadlines set forth in the magistrate judge’s ruling dated September 1, 2006, be HELD IN 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1065 Filed 09/14/06 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

ABEYANCE pending the court’s decision on the merits of defendants’ objections. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1065 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2