Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-115/pdf.json

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

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING - CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

EDMUND G. BROWN JR 

Attorney General of the State of California 

THOMAS GREENE 

Chief Assistant Attorney General 

KATHLEEN E. FOOTE (65819) 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

EMILIO E. VARANINI (163952) 

Deputy Attorney General 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Telephone: (415) 703-5908 

Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 

Email: emilio.varanini@doj.ca.gov 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs (C-06-04333) 

ANDREW M. CUOMO 

Attorney General of the State of New York 

JAY L. HIMES 

Bureau Chief, Antitrust Bureau 

RICHARD L. SCHWARTZ 

JEREMY R. KASHA 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of the New York Attorney General 

120 Broadway, 26th Floor 

New York, New York 10271-0332 

Telephone: (212) 416-8262 

Facsimile: (212) 416-6015 

Counsel for Plaintiff State of New York (C-06-06436) 

JAMES G. KREISSMAN (206740) 

HARRISON J. FRAHN IV (206822) 

ISABELLE A. YOUNG (246112) 

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 

2550 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 251-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 

Email: jkreissman@stblaw.com 

 hfrahn@stblaw.comEmail 

 iyoung@stblaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants Elpida Memory, Inc. 

and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. and 

on Behalf of Counsel for all other Defendants (Hynix, 

Micron, NEC, Infineon, Mosel and Nanya)

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 7
 1 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING – CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Case No. C-02-01486 PJH (JCS) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 

HEARING 

This Document Relates To: 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. C-06-04333 PJH (JCS) 

This Document Relates To: 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-06-06436 PJH (JCS) 

Pursuant to the Court’s June 25, 2007 Order, a hearing and further discovery 

conference in the above-captioned matters was held on July 27, 2007. Richard L. Schwartz appeared 

on behalf of Plaintiff State of New York, Emilio E. Varanini appeared on behalf of Plaintiff State of 

California and Tim Nord appeared on behalf of Plaintiff State of Oregon. The following counsel 

appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs: Lizabeth Leeds (State of Florida), John Tennis 

(State of Maryland), and Blake Harrop (State of Illinois). 

Steven H. Bergman of O’Melveny & Myers LLP appeared on behalf of the Hynix 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 7
 2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING – CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

defendants, G. Charles Nierlich of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP appeared on behalf of the Micron 

defendants, Isabelle A. Young of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP appeared on behalf of the Elpida 

defendants, David Brownstein of Heller Ehrman LLP appeared on behalf of the Mosel Vitelic 

defendants, and Howard Ullman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP appeared on behalf of the 

Nanya defendants. The following counsel appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants: 

Jonathan Swartz of Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP (NEC), Josh Stambaugh of Kaye 

Scholer LLP (Infineon), and Jane Chang of O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Hynix). 

Having read the Joint Discovery Statement submitted by the parties on July 23, 2007 

and having heard the arguments of counsel, the Court finds as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs have identified for Defendants all state, local, or other municipal 

agencies or entities on whose behalf Plaintiffs are prosecuting these actions. 

2. Plaintiffs have identified for Defendants all state agencies, universities and 

colleges, and local governments that will be included in Plaintiffs’ proposed 

survey. 

3. Plaintiffs have identified for Defendants the States which had a centralized 

purchasing or contracting agency and to what extent DRAM-related purchases 

were made by the agency or pursuant to the agency negotiated contract. 

THEREFORE, having read the Joint Discovery Statement and having heard the 

arguments of counsel, and based upon the Court’s findings at the hearing, the Court HEREBY 

ORDERS as follows: 

A. PLAINTIFFS’ SURVEY 

1. Pursuant to paragraph two (2) of the Court’s July 25, 2007 Order re June 14, 

2007 Joint Letter (“July 25, 2007 Order”), Plaintiffs shall provide, on a rolling 

basis, all information gathered and generated in connection with Plaintiffs’ 

survey. 

2. Not later than August 10, 2007, Plaintiffs shall describe in detail and under 

oath (either in the form of an interrogatory response or as a declaration) the 

methodology by which the survey participants in each group were selected, 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 7
 3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING – CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

and shall provide such description to Defendants. 

3. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall meet and confer regarding the production of 

any master data sets used to select survey participants and, to the extent such 

master data set exists, Plaintiffs shall include a description of such data in 

their detailed statement under oath. 

4. Not later than August 3, 2007, Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendants an 

initial survey questionnaire that Plaintiffs intend to send to survey 

participants. 

5. Not later than August 13, 2007, Defendants may provide to Plaintiffs any 

input Defendants have concerning the questionnaire, including additional 

questions. Plaintiffs are not required to accept Defendants’ suggestions.1

 

However, if Plaintiffs fail to accept Defendants’ suggestions, Defendants may 

apply to the Court for relief and may request changes to the survey or that a 

further questionnaire be sent to each survey participant. 

6. Plaintiffs shall distribute the initial questionnaire to survey participants on a 

rolling basis after August 13, 2007. The survey participants shall be requested 

to respond to the initial questionnaire within not more than 10 days of 

receiving such questionnaire. 

7. Prior to September 7, 2007, the parties shall meet and confer about the 

production of documents by the survey participants. In order to test the 

survey, Defendants have reserved the right to seek additional information and 

documents from non-survey participants at a later date. 

B. CENTRAL PURCHASING AGENCIES 

1. Plaintiffs shall fully comply with paragraph three (3) of the June 25, 2007 

Order not later than August 16, 2006. 

 

1

 The Court acknowledges Defendants’ objections to the Plaintiffs’ proposed survey and any 

discovery that Defendants seek in connection with the survey is without prejudice to Defendants’ 

right to object to introduction of the survey into evidence or to challenge the survey on any basis. 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 4 of 7
 4 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING – CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

C. DEPOSITIONS 

1. Not later than August 26, 2007, the parties shall agree on the identity of the 

twenty (20) initial 30(b)(6) Multistate Plaintiff deponents, as well as the dates 

when such depositions shall occur. The Plaintiff State shall not be required to 

designate entities for deposition that they do not represent. A 30(b)(6) 

deponent or deponents for the State of New York shall also be deposed. The 

parties have agreed to review the transcript of the July 27 hearing concerning 

the scope of the appropriate topics for questioning at such depositions. The 

parties will meet and confer, if necessary, to address any remaining issues 

concerning the scope of the appropriate topics for questioning at these 

depositions. 

2. The parties may meet and confer concerning the location for depositions, 

consistent with any ruling by the Court at the hearing on July 27. 

D. ADDITIONAL WRITTEN DISCOVERY 

1. Not later than September 25, 2007, Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants in 

writing citations to generally applicable State laws and regulations that govern 

the purchasing and/or procurement process in each State 

2. With respect to those States that do not have a central purchasing agency or 

where the central purchasing agency does not purchase a majority of the 

DRAM-containing products for that State, questions concerning details 

regarding the purchasing and procurement process for the Plaintiff, the 

location of available documents and document retention policies, shall be 

answered under oath by a large state agency, a university or college, and a 

local government entity in each such State; (to the extent that said State 

represents state agencies, universities/colleges, or local government entities); 

provided, however, that if a large state agency, a university or college, or a 

local government entity is deposed, then no response to such written questions 

shall be required from the category of entity that was deposed. With respect to 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 5 of 7
 5 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING – CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

those States with central processing agencies that are not deposed, the Court 

reserves the right to decide this issue at a later date. 

3. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the questions to be posed to the 

entities described in section D.2 above. 

E. FACT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

Judge Hamilton’s July 26, 2007 Order concerning the July 16, 2007 fact discovery 

cut-off date does not bar the discovery contemplated in Sections A through D. 

 F. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES 

Except for in an emergency, before filing any discovery motions, the parties shall 

abide by the following procedures to ensure the prompt resolution of any disputes: 

1. Counsel for the parties shall first meet and confer to attempt to resolve any 

discovery dispute. This may be done by telephone, e-mail, or other form of 

correspondence. 

2. If the dispute is not resolved in short order through the meet and confer effort, 

lead trial counsel shall meet and confer in-person to attempt to resolve any 

disputes. Any party may demand such a meeting on five business days’ 

notice. The location of these meetings shall alternate, with Plaintiffs’ offices 

being the first location for any such in-person meeting, or such other location 

as the parties agree upon, and with Defendants choosing the next location. 

The parties may also, by agreement, set the location of such in-person 

meetings. 

3. If the dispute is not resolved through this in-person meet and confer, the 

parties shall submit a Joint Letter Brief, not to exceed three (3) pages, setting 

forth the substance of the dispute, the positions of each relevant party, and the 

final compromise positions offered. 

4. Upon receipt of the Joint Letter Brief, the Court will determine what action 

will be taken by either issuing a ruling, holding a telephonic hearing, or, in 

rare cases, requesting supplemental briefing from parties. 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 6 of 7
 6 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JULY 27, 2007 HEARING – CASE NO. 02-1486 PJH (JCS); 06-04333 PJH (JCS); 06-6436 

PJH (JCS) 

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 

 G. MOTIONS TO COMPEL FACT DISCOVERY 

The following concerns discovery not related to Plaintiffs’ survey. 

1. With respect to the New York action (C-06-06436), both Plaintiff State of 

New York and Defendants shall file any motions to compel the production of 

discovery not later than August 24, 2007, provided the discovery was the 

subject of a formal request prior to the July 16, 2007 discovery cutoff date. 

2. With respect to the Multistate action (C-06-04333), regarding various 

Defendants’ discovery requests served on or around June 15, 2006, 

Defendants shall file any motions to compel the production of discovery not 

later than September 5, 2007 (i.e., 30 days after the agreed upon response 

date). As regards earlier discovery requests served by Plaintiffs or 

Defendants, both Plaintiffs and Defendants shall file any motions to compel 

the production of discovery not later than August 24, 2007 (i.e., 30 days 

from July 25, 2007 per agreement of the parties). 

3. A motion to compel is deemed filed when the joint letter brief required by 

Section F.3 is filed with the Court. 

 G. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REGARDING SURVEY

The Court will conduct a further discovery conference on September 7, 2007, at 

9:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding such survey-related discovery, 

including all agreements reached during any meet-and-confer sessions and all issues remaining from 

such meet-and-confer sessions, not later than August 31, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August ___, 2007 

 

 JOSEPH C. SPERO 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1676 Filed 08/07/07 Page 7 of 7