Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-77/pdf.json

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

---

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

LA2:818823.1

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE (S.B. #120144)

STEVEN H. BERGMAN (S.B. #180542)

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

400 South Hope Street

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899

Telephone: (213) 430-6000

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407

IAN SIMMONS 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

1625 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006-4001

Telephone: (202) 383-5300

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

Attorneys for Defendants

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC. and

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.

[other parties/counsel listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Petro Computer Systems, Inc. et al. v. 

Micron Technology, Inc., et al., 

Northern District of California Case No. 

C 05-02472

Master File No. M-02-1486 PJH

MDL. No. 1486

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY SCHEDULE 

AND DISCOVERY ISSUES

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 7
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

LA2:818823.1 - 2 -

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

This Stipulation is entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendants in Petro 

Computer Systems, Inc. et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 05-02472

(N.D. Cal.), and is made with regard to the following facts:

A. WHEREAS on August 29, 2006, the Court issued a Case Management 

Order in which the Court reiterated that the indirect purchaser cases, including Petro 

Computer Systems, Inc., et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., are subject to a discovery 

cutoff date of October 31, 2006; and

B. WHEREAS the Plaintiffs and Defendants each have outstanding discovery 

requests upon which discovery disputes have arisen and upon which they have been 

meeting and conferring; and

C. WHEREAS the Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a consensual 

resolution of the outstanding discovery issues and disputes between them concerning 

depositions, interrogatories and document requests; and 

D. WHEREAS the parties are continuing to meet and confer regarding other 

issues related to interrogatories and document requests; and

E. WHEREAS the parties agree that additional time is needed to complete 

certain discovery noticed prior to October 3, 2006.

F. WHEREAS the parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order to the 

Court on November 14, 2006 regarding these matters;

G. WHEREAS the Court denied the Stipulation as written and agreed to 

reconsider the issue at the hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

on December 6, 2006;

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 7
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

LA2:818823.1 - 3 -

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

H. WHEREAS the parties wish to clarify that certain third-party document 

discovery was not completed by the October 31, 2006, discovery deadline, and that the 

parties seek an additional 20 days to complete discovery as to certain third parties only, 

and to allow a short period thereafter for any motion practice related to third party 

discovery.

I. WHEREAS, also contained in the Stipulation submitted to the Court on 

November 14, 2006 was the parties’ agreement on dates for responding to written 

interrogatories. Under that agreement, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs would answer the 

defendants’ interrogatories by January 31, 2007 and the defendants would respond to the 

indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ interrogatories by March 30, 2007. This resolution was 

reached in response to a discovery motion submitted to Magistrate Judge Spero by the 

defendants. The proposed resolution of disputes over answering interrogatories was not 

intended to affect the other dates in the pre-trial schedule, including briefing of the 

indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 

J. WHEREAS both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the defendants agree 

that they will not seek to alter any pretrial dates set by the Court based on the dates agreed 

to by the parties for remaining third party discovery or to respond to written 

interrogatories. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. For discovery to third parties noticed prior to October 3, 2006 only, the 

discovery cut-off shall be extended for 20 days from the date of this Order. 

2. Plaintiffs may, in addition to completing discovery noticed prior to October 

3, 2006, take up to four additional depositions of third parties during that time period.

3. Defendants may, in addition to completing discovery noticed prior to 

October 3, 2006, take up to four additional depositions of third parties during that time 

period.

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 7
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

LA2:818823.1 - 4 -

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

4. The parties agree that they will not contest the admissibility of depositions 

of parties or employees of the parties taken by mutual consent after the October 31, 2006 

on the grounds that such depositions took place after the discovery cut-off. 

5. Plaintiffs shall provide substantive answers to Defendants’ interrogatories 

by January 31, 2007. The interrogatories that Plaintiffs shall answer by January 31, 2007 

are:

a. Certain Defendants Infineon Technologies North America 

Corp., Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Winbond Electronics 

Corporation, NEC Electronics America, Inc., Micron 

Semiconductor Products Inc., Micron Technology Inc., 

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA), 

Inc.’s First Joint Set of Special Interrogatories to Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs;

b. Elpida Memory (USA), Inc.'s First Set of Special 

Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs;

c. Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.’s First Set of Special 

Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs;

d. Micron Semiconductor Products Inc. and Micron Technology 

Inc.’s First Set of Special Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs;

e. Mosel Vitelic Inc. and Mosel Vitelic Corporation’s First Set 

of Special Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs;

f. Nanya Technology Corporation’s First Set of Special 

Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs;

g. Nanya Technology Corporation USA’s First Set of Special 

Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs;

h. Winbond Electronics Corporation’s First Set of Special 

Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs; and 

i. Winbond Electronics Corporation America’s First Set of 

Special Interrogatories to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.

6. Plaintiffs shall reduce the number of interrogatories propounded upon each 

Defendant (or jointly represented Defendant Group as applicable) to 25 interrogatories out 

of those already propounded to each Defendant (or jointly represented Defendant Group 

as applicable). Any interrogatories already answered by a given Defendant (or jointly 

represented Defendant Group as applicable) shall be counted against the limit of 25 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 4 of 7
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

LA2:818823.1 - 5 -

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

interrogatories that can be propounded upon that Defendant (or jointly represented 

Defendant Group as applicable).

7. The relevant time period for the interrogatory responses and document 

requests shall be April 1, 1998 through June 30, 2002, excluding transactional data 

responses for which the time period is as separately negotiated and agreed in the meet and 

confer process. Pursuant to the February 27, 2006 Order re Discovery Plan, “parties with 

unique issues (e.g., smaller grand jury periods) shall meet and confer and, if necessary, 

shall resolve any disputes through the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth [t]herein.” 

8. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories by March 2, 2007.

9. Defendants reserve all objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories other than 

objections to the number of interrogatories as exceeding 25, and the parties will meet and 

confer on other objections on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, Plaintiffs reserve their 

ability to challenge those objections on a case-by-case basis.

10. Defendants reserve all objections to Plaintiffs’ document requests, and the 

parties will meet and confer on any objections on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, 

Plaintiffs reserve their ability to challenge those objections on a case-by-case basis. 

11. Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notices to Defendants regarding authentication of 

documents are withdrawn. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to enter into additional 

Stipulations, modeled after the Stipulations between certain Defendants and the Direct 

Purchaser Plaintiffs, regarding the authentication of documents and laying the foundation 

for use of documents as business records. If such Stipulations cannot be reached, or are

rejected by the Court, Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notices shall be reinstated, and Plaintiffs shall 

have 30 days after the date of notice of reinstatement of those Notices to finish the 

depositions.

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 5 of 7
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

LA2:818823.1 - 6 -

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

12. Apart from any disputes raised by Plaintiffs to any objections by Defendants 

to interrogatories and document requests, as reserved in Paragraphs 7 and 8 above, this 

Stipulation resolves all other unresolved issues with respect to the responses to written 

discovery propounded by Plaintiffs to Defendants, or by Defendants to Plaintiffs. 

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 8, 2006 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE

STEVEN H. BERGMAN

DANIEL L. ALEXANDER

By: /Steven H. Bergman/

Steven H. Bergman

Attorneys for Defendants

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC. and

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA

INC. and signing on behalf of Defendants 

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES NORTH 

AMERICA CORP.; WINBOND 

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; NEC 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; 

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR 

PRODUCTS INC.; MICRON 

TECHNOLOGY INC.; ELPIDA 

MEMORY (USA), INC.; MOSEL 

VITELIC INC.; MOSEL VITELIC 

CORPORATION; NANYA 

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; 

NANYA TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION USA; and WINBOND 

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 

AMERICA

Dated: December 8, 2006 GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP

DANIEL E. GUSTAFSON

By: /Daniel E. Gustafson/

 Daniel E. Gustafson

Attorneys for 

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 6 of 7
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

LA2:818823.1 - 7 -

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY SCHED. & ISSUES

MDL NO. 1486; NO. M-02-1486 PJH

ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, it is so ordered. 

Dated: 

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

Judge for the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

California

12/7/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1219 Filed 12/08/06 Page 7 of 7