Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-8/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 No. M 02-1486 PJH

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION ORDER RE INDIRECT 

_______________________________/ PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS

Before this court are the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ various proposals regarding their

separate leadership structure for this litigation. Three proposals were received: the Majority

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ proposal, the Bonsignore and Hallisey proposal, and the Mogin

Law Firm proposal. Having considered all three proposals, the court concludes that the

Majority Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ proposal should be given the most weight, as it is made

by the greatest number of plaintiffs, and neither of the other two groups who have submitted

proposals appear to object to its general framework. 

The court therefore adopts the basic proposal set forth by the Majority Indirect

Purchaser Plaintiffs, including four co-lead counsel, one liaison counsel, and an executive

committee comprised of other counsel. The parties shall determine among themselves which

particular four lead co-counsel will be named, but the court orders that either Daniel Mogin or

another representative of the Southern California end users be named to one of those four

positions. Neither Bonsignore nor Hallisey need be named to a co-lead counsel position

unless the parties agree that one or both should be so named. 

The court finds the designation of one liaison counsel sufficient, and Francis O.

Scarpetta shall remain the designated liaison counsel. 

The court also approves the use of an executive committee as proposed by the

Majority Plaintiffs, and offers no opinion as to the size of the committee. However, assuming a

committee of seventeen, the court orders that the committee include either the Bonsignore &

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 526 Filed 08/16/05 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

Brewer or Hallisey & Johnson firms, and either the firm of Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens

or the Law Offices of Alexander M. Scack.

Finally, counsel for parties seeking remand shall remain on the executive committee as

long as the cases remain in federal court as part of this consolidated litigation. However, if

any party prevails on its motion to remand, the court expects that its counsel will be dismissed

from the executive committee.

The parties shall prepare for signature a proposed Pretrial Order No. 2 that

incorporates the rulings made above as well as those matters pertaining to the direct

purchasers, so that one fully integrated pretrial order may be filed to guide these pretrial

proceedings. This order fully adjudicates the matters listed at nos. 486, 487, 489, and 494.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 526 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2