Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819-13/pdf.json

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

---

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER ROGATORY) 

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE STATIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (SRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

Case No. M:07-CV-01819-CW 

MDL No. 1819 

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL 

JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE 

(LETTER ROGATORY) 

The United States District Court Northern District of California, Oakland Division, 

presents its compliments to the Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan, and requests 

international assistance to effect service of process to be used in a civil proceeding before this 

Court in the above-captioned matter. 

I. REQUEST 

This Court requests the assistance described herein as necessary in the interests of 

justice. The assistance requested is that the Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan effect 

Service of Process of: (1) Amended Summons in a Civil Case; (2) Indirect-Purchaser 

Plaintiffs’ Placeholder Complaint; (3) Civil Cover Sheet; (4) First Pretrial Order; (5) 

Amended Minute Order and Case Management Order; (6) Supplemental Case Management 

Order No. 1; (7) Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California; (8) 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 300 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 4
2 

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER ROGATORY) 

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

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 Northern District of California ECF Registration Information 

Handout; and (9) Certified Translations on the below-named corporation: 

Winbond Electronics Corporation 

4, Creaton Road, 

111, Science-Based Industrial Park 

Hsinchu, Taiwan 

The Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan is requested to serve the abovementioned documents, and the Chinese translations thereof, by personal service into the hands 

of a director, managing agent or other person authorized to accept service at the above-listed 

address or in any manner prescribed for the service of such documents consistent with the law 

of Taiwan. 

II. FACTS OF THE CASE 

The Complaint in this action was been filed under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, (15 

U.S.C. § 26), to obtain injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, (15 

U.S.C. § 1), and to recover damages and/or restitution under various state antitrust and 

consumer protection laws, including to recover the costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 

The Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

There are two general categories of cases in these related actions: (1) those brought 

under federal law on behalf of direct purchasers; and (2) those brought generally under state 

law on behalf of indirect purchasers, for which there are over seventy complaints covering 

twenty-three different states. All plaintiffs allege that they purchased Static Random Access 

Memory (“SRAM”) computer chips either directly or indirectly from defendants or from their 

alleged co-conspirators. Plaintiffs claim damages caused by the defendants’ conspiracy to fix 

prices on SRAM chips sold in the United States and elsewhere. The plaintiffs allege the 

conspiracy began in November 1, 1996 and continued through at least December 31, 2006 

(the “Class Period”). 

In or about October of 2006, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of 

Justice (“DOJ”) sent out subpoenas to various companies in connection with an investigation 

of cartel activity in the SRAM industry. Several of these companies being investigated have 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 300 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 4
3 

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER ROGATORY) 

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

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

already pled guilty to price-fixing in the DRAM industry and have paid substantial fines to the 

DOJ for those unlawful activities. 

III. RECIPROCITY 

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland 

Division, represents that, in the event, a citizen of Taiwan required assistance serving process 

on a citizen of California, this Court would be willing to provide similar assistance to the 

Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan in effectuating service on the California resident as 

is being requested through this Letter Rogatory. 

IV. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS 

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland 

Division, will not reimburse the Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan for costs incurred 

in executing this Letter Rogatory. Interim Lead and Liaison Counsel for the IndirectPurchaser Plaintiffs are willing to, and will be responsible for, reimbursing the Appropriate 

Judicial Authority of Taiwan for costs incurred in executing this Letter Rogatory in an amount 

not to exceed Fifteen Hundred ($1,500.00) United States Dollars (USD). If the costs for 

executing this Letter Rogatory will exceed $1,500 USD, please contact Interim Lead and 

Liaison Counsel for the Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs: Francis O. Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann 

Voebel Mason & Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400, San Francisco, CA 94104. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 300 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 4
4 

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER ROGATORY) 

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

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 acknowledgment of the additional time which is needed to prepare and file an 

Answer to the attached documents, the time period for answering is extended to 45 days after 

service. 

 The Court extends to the judicial authorities of Taiwan assurances of its highest 

consideration.

 9/26/07 

DATED: 

 

By: 

 The Hon. Claudia Wilken 

 United States District Judge 

 United States District Court 

 Northern District of California 

 Oakland Division 

 1301 Clay Street, Suite 400S 

 Oakland, CA 94612 

3170279.1 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 300 Filed 09/26/07 Page 4 of 4