Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01648/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01648-67/pdf.json

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

---

1

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

R. Scott Feldmann (CA Bar No. 169230)

Daniel A. Sasse (CA Bar No. 236234)

Van-Dzung V. Nguyen (CA Bar No. 222832)

CROWELL & MORING LLP

3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor

Irvine, CA 92614-8505

Telephone: (949) 263-8400

Facsimile: (949) 263-8414

Email: sfeldmann@crowell.com

dsasse@crowell.com

vnguyen@crowell.com

Kent A. Gardiner 

Alexandre de Gramont 

CROWELL & MORING LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 624-2500

Facsimile: (202) 628-5116

Email: kgardiner@crowell.com

adegramont@crowell.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Bandag, Incorporated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE RUBBER CHEMICALS ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., et al.

v. Chemtura Corporation, et al. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Docket No. C 04-1648 MJJ 

Individual Case No. C 06-5700 MJJ

STIPULATION REGARDING 

TEMPORARY STAY OF 

DISCOVERY AS TO INDIVIDUAL 

DEFENDANTS AND ADMISSIBILITY 

OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

WHEREAS, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., et al. v. Chemtura Corporation, et al., 

Individual Case No. C 06-5700 MJJ (this “Action”), was transferred from the Middle District of 

Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and docketed with this Court on September 19, 2006 to 

be coordinated with In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. C 04-1648 

MJJ (the “Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding”);

WHEREAS, individual defendants James J. Conway (“Conway”), Joseph B. Eisenberg 

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 9
2

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

(“Eisenberg”), Michael J. Duchesne (“Duchesne”) and Peter D. Welch (“Welch”) (collectively 

referred to as the “Individual Defendants” or separately referred to as each “Individual 

Defendant”), former or current employees of defendants Chemtura Corporation and/or Uniroyal 

Chemical Company, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Chemtura”), were named in the Amended 

Complaint filed on September 22, 2006 in this Action;

WHEREAS, motions to dismiss are pending in this Action and are currently scheduled 

for hearing on June 27, 2007; 

WHEREAS, each Individual Defendant represents, to the best of his knowledge, that any 

and all documents (the term “document(s)” shall have the meaning employed in Rule 34(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), in his possession, custody or control, relevant to the 

allegations of the Amended Complaint in this Action have been previously provided to Chemtura 

for production in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding; 

WHEREAS, Chemtura represents that all documents which it had produced in the 

Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, including all non-privileged documents provided to 

Chemtura by each Individual Defendant relevant to the allegations of the Amended Complaint, 

have been produced to plaintiff Bandag, Incorporated (“Bandag”) (Bandag, Chemtura and the 

Individual Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Parties”) in this Action; 

WHEREAS, Conway represents that if his deposition were to be taken now in this 

Action, his specific answers to each respective question remain the same as to those provided in 

his videotaped deposition taken on March 9, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding; 

WHEREAS, Eisenberg represents that if his deposition were to be taken now in this 

Action, his specific answers to each respective question remain the same as to those provided in 

his videotaped deposition taken on February 22, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL 

Proceeding; 

WHEREAS, Duchesne represents that if his deposition were to be taken now in this 

Action, his specific answers to each respective question remain the same as to those provided in 

his videotaped deposition taken on February 13, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL 

Proceeding; 

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 9
3

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

WHEREAS, Welch represents that if his deposition were to be taken now in this Action, 

his specific answers to each respective question remain the same as to those provided in his 

videotaped deposition taken on January 19, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding; and 

WHEREAS, in order to avoid the expense of conducting discovery pending a decision by 

the Court on the motions to dismiss, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED 

BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, THAT:

1. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Conway taken on March 9, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, based 

on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to which 

Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the ability 

of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

2. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Eisenberg taken on February 22, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, 

based on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to 

which Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the 

ability of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

3. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Duchesne taken on February 13, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, 

based on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to 

which Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the 

ability of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

4. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 9
4

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Welch taken on January 19, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, based 

on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to which 

Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the ability 

of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

5. The Parties may not object to the admissibility against any Party of any 

deposition testimony (either party or third party), taken in the Rubber Chemicals MDL 

Proceeding, based on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL 

Proceeding to which Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, 

however, limits the ability of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony 

in this Action under applicable law. 

6. Discovery against or by the Individual Defendants is temporarily stayed pending a 

decision issued by the Court on the motions to dismiss, or until July 15, 2007, whichever date is 

earlier. 

7. The stay shall have no impact on the on-going discovery between Chemtura and 

Bandag, and discovery between Chemtura and Bandag will continue on in its normal course. 

8. Should discovery against or by the Individual Defendants become necessary 

during the stay for any reason, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith, and if an 

agreement cannot be reached, the Parties reserve their rights to seek relief from the Court. 

9. After a decision by the Court on the motions to dismiss is issued, or after 

July 15, 2007, whichever date is earlier, the stay is lifted, and discovery against or by the 

Individual Defendants may be conducted in its normal course, subject to the right of any Party to 

seek a protective order if it believes it is warranted and a proper showing can be made. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 4 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 4 of 9
5

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

10. Each undersigned counsel represents that he or she has conferred with his or her 

respective client(s) regarding the above representations and has full authority to enter into this 

Stipulation on behalf of his or her respective client(s). 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 30, 2007 CROWELL & MORING LLP

R. Scott Feldmann

Daniel A. Sasse

Van-Dzung V. Nguyen

3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor

Irvine, CA 92614-8505

Telephone: (949) 263-8400

Facsimile: (949) 263-8414

Kent A. Gardiner

Alexandre de Gramont

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 624-2500

Facsimile: (202) 628-5116

Attorneys for Plaintiff Bandag, Incorporated

Dated: July , 2007 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

Ian T. Simmons

Matthew R. Cosgrove

Benjamin G. Bradshaw

Nilam A. Sanghvi

Angela Thaler Wilks

1625 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-4001

Telephone: (202) 383-5300

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

Attorneys for Defendants Chemtura 

Corporation(formerly known as Crompton Corporation) 

and Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc.

SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 5 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 5 of 9
6

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE PAGE TO

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AS TO INDIVIDUAL 

DEFENDANTS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Dated: June , 2007 ROPES & GRAY LLP

Jason Brown

Rachel Nash

1211 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-8704

Telephone: (212) 596-9000

Facsimile: (212) 596-9090

Attorneys for Defendant Michael J. Duchesne

Dated: June , 2007 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP

William J. Schwartz

Jason M. Koral 

1114 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036-7798

Telephone: (212) 856-9600

Facsimile: (212) 856-9494

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph B. Eisenberg 

Dated: June , 2007 MORVILLO, ABRAMOWITZ, GRAND, IASON, 

ANELLO & BOHRER, P.C.

Barry A. Bohrer

E. Scott Schirick 

565 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Telephone: (212) 856-9600

Facsimile: (212) 856-9494

Attorneys for Defendant Peter D. Welch

SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 6 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 6 of 9
7

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE PAGE TO

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AS TO INDIVIDUAL 

DEFENDANTS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Dated: June , 2007 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW & PITTMAN LLP

Mark R. Hellerer

Ranah L. Esmiali

1540 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

Telephone: (212) 858-1000

Facsimile: (212) 858-1500

Attorneys for Defendant James J. Conway

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 7 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 7 of 9
8

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Conway taken on March 9, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, based 

on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to which 

Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the ability 

of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

2. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Eisenberg taken on February 22, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, 

based on ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to 

which Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the 

ability of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

3. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility,

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Duchesne taken on February 13, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL, based on the 

ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to which 

Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the ability 

of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

applicable law.

4. Chemtura and/or Individual Defendants may not object to the admissibility, 

against Chemtura and/or any Individual Defendant in this Action, of the videotaped deposition 

testimony of Welch taken on January 19, 2006 in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding, based 

on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL Proceeding to which 

Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, however, limits the ability 

of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony in this Action under 

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 8 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 8 of 9
9

STIPULATION REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER (MDL CASE NO. C 04-1648 MJJ; INDIVIDUAL CASE NO. C 06-5700 MJJ)

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

applicable law.

5. The Parties may not object to the admissibility against any Party of any 

deposition testimony (either party or third party), taken in the Rubber Chemicals MDL 

Proceeding, based on the ground that the testimony was given in the Rubber Chemicals MDL 

Proceeding to which Individual Defendants and Bandag were not parties. Nothing herein, 

however, limits the ability of any Party to otherwise object to the admissibility of the testimony 

in this Action under applicable law.

6. Discovery against or by Individual Defendants is temporarily stayed pending a 

decision issued by the Court on the motions to dismiss, or until July 15, 2007, whichever date is 

earlier.

7. The stay shall have no impact on the on-going discovery between Chemtura and 

Bandag, and discovery between Chemtura and Bandag will continue on in its normal course. 

8. Should discovery against or by the Individual Defendants become necessary 

during the stay for any reason, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith, and if an 

agreement cannot be reached, the Parties may seek relief from the Court. 

9. After a decision by the Court on the motions to dismiss is issued, or after 

July 15, 2007, whichever date is earlier, the stay is lifted, and discovery against or by the 

Individual Defendants may be conducted in its normal course, subject to the right of any Party to 

seek a protective order if it believes it is warranted and a proper showing can be made. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________, 2007 BY:_______________________________

HONORABLE MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

Case 3:06-cv-05700-MJJ Document 138 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 9 of 9 Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 544 Filed 08/13/07 Page 9 of 9