Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-133/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 - 1 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING Case No. 07-5944 

THE COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. ACTION MDL No. 1917 

STIPULATING PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: Individual Case 

No. 13-cv-2776 

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION and 

SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING 

COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 07-5944 (SC) 

MDL No. 1917 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING THE 

COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP 

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 

AND SHARP ELECTRONICS 

MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, INC. ACTION

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1762 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 5
 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 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING Case No. 07-5944 

THE COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. ACTION MDL No. 1917 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics 

Corporation and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) and the undersigned Defendants have conferred by and through their counsel and, 

subject to the Court’s approval, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

WHEREAS, on June 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Summons and Complaint in the 

Northern District of California, Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics 

N.V., et al., Case No. 13-cv-2776 (the “Sharp Summons” and the “Sharp Complaint,” 

respectively); 

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion Pursuant 

to Civil L.R. 3-12 To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, identifying Sharp Electronics 

Corp., et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et al. as related to In re Cathode Ray Tube 

(CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5944-SC (MDL No. 1917); 

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2013, this Court entered an Order finding that Sharp 

Electronics Corp., et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et al. is related to In re Cathode 

Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5944-SC (MDL No. 1917); 

WHEREAS, the undersigned Defendants named in the Sharp Complaint 

(“Defendants”) have not yet been formally served with process; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the 

undersigned Plaintiffs and Defendants, as follows: 

1. Each of the undersigned Defendants shall be deemed served with the 

Sharp Summons and Complaint as of the date of execution of this Stipulation. 

2. The Sharp Complaint asserts similar causes of action alleged by the 

following Direct Action Plaintiff complaints: Stoebner v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 11-cv-05381 

(N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 7, 2011); Target Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05514 

(N.D. Cal.) (Jan. 6, 2012); P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv02648 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv02649 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06396 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1762 Filed 07/03/13 Page 2 of 5
 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 - 3 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING Case No. 07-5944 

THE COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. ACTION MDL No. 1917 

(N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06275 (N.D. 

Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06397 (N.D. Cal.) 

(Nov. 14, 2011); Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05502 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Office 

Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06276 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Best Buy Co., Inc. v. 

Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05513 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. 

Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-01656 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 10, 2011); Tech Data Corporation, et al. v. 

Hitachi, Ltd. et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-02795 (M.D. Fla.) (Dec. 11, 2012); and Sharp Electronics 

Corporation, et al. v. Hitachi Ltd., et al., Case No. 13-cv-1173 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 15, 2013). 

3. The Sharp Complaint seeks damages based on an alleged conspiracy to 

fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for CRTs, as set forth in the Sharp Complaint; the 

Sharp Complaint does not assert any claims that Defendants have combined and conspired to fix, 

raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of products containing CRTs (“CRT Finished Products”). 

4. On August 17, 2012, Defendants filed motions to dismiss and for 

judgment on the pleadings with respect to the following Direct Action Plaintiff complaints (the 

“Dispositive Motions”): Stoebner v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 11-cv-05381 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 7, 

2011); Target Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05514 (N.D. Cal.) (Jan. 6, 

2012); P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv-02648 (N.D. Cal.) 

(Nov. 14, 2011); Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv-02649 (N.D. Cal.) 

(Nov. 14, 2011); CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06396 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 

14, 2011); Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06275 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); 

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06397 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Siegel v. 

Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05502 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 

No. 11-cv-06276 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv05513 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); and Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv01656 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 10, 2011). (Dkt. Nos. 1316, 1317, 1319). 

5. Pending the resolution of the Dispositive Motions, the undersigned 

Defendants do not need to answer or otherwise respond to the Sharp Complaint. Once the 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1762 Filed 07/03/13 Page 3 of 5
 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 - 4 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING Case No. 07-5944 

THE COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. ACTION MDL No. 1917 

Honorable Samuel Conti rules on the Dispositive Motions, the parties agree to set a reasonable 

deadline for Defendants’ answers and/or a reasonable briefing schedule for Defendants’ motions 

to dismiss Sharp’s Complaint. 

6. The undersigned parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court 

enter this stipulation as an order. 

Dated: June 28, 2013 TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP 

By: __/s/ Jonathan A. Patchen_________________ Stephen E. Taylor (SBN 058452) 

Jonathan A. Patchen (SBN 237346) 

TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP 

One Ferry Building, Suite 355 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 788-8200 

Facsimile: (415) 788-8208 

Email: staylor@tcolaw.com 

Email: jpatchen@tcolaw.com 

Kenneth A. Gallo (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) 

Joseph J. Simons (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) 

Craig A. Benson (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) 

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 

2001 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 223-7300 

Facsimile: (202) 204-7356 

Email: kgallo@paulweiss.com 

Email: jsimons@paulweiss.com 

Email: cbenson@paulweiss.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics Corporation and Sharp 

Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. 

Dated: June 28, 2013 BAKER BOTTS LLP 

By: /s/ Jon Swenson___________________ 

JON V. SWENSON (SBN 233054) 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

1001 Page Mill Road 

Building One, Suite 200 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Telephone: (650) 739-7500 

Facsimile: (650) 739-7699 

E-mail: jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1762 Filed 07/03/13 Page 4 of 5
 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 - 5 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING Case No. 07-5944 

THE COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. ACTION MDL No. 1917 

JOHN M. TALADAY (pro hac vice) 

JOSEPH OSTOYICH (pro hac vice) 

ERIK T. KOONS (pro hac vice) 

CHARLES M. MALAISE (pro hac vice) 

TIFFANY GELOTT (pro hac vice) 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-2400 

Telephone: (202) 639-7700 

Facsimile: (202) 639-7890 

E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com 

E-mail: joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com 

E-mail: erik.koons@bakerbotts.com 

E-mail: charles.malaise@bakerbotts.com 

E-mail: tiffany.gelott@bakerbotts.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and 

Philips Electronics North America Corporation 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ____July 3, 2013 ______ __________________________________________ 

HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1762 Filed 07/03/13 Page 5 of 5