Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00013/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00013-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &

BERNSTEIN, LLP,

Plaintiff,

 v

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION, 

Defendant.

______________________________/

No C 10-0013 VRW

ORDER

The above-captioned Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

action is a product of a consolidated multi-district litigation

entitled In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation,

M:10-2143 VRW (“ODD”). The individual actions making up the ODD

case were filed in the wake of public disclosures of an ongoing

United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (“DOJ”)

investigation into possible violations of antitrust law in the ODD

industry (“criminal investigation”). Doc #16 at 10. Plaintiff in

this FOIA case, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Case 3:10-cv-00013-RS Document 27 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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

(“Lieff”), apparently in preparation of an anticipated Twombly

motion to dismiss in the civil ODD action, has requested, via the

Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552, that DOJ produce subpoenas

the DOJ issued to entities that manufacture and sell optical disk

drives as part of the criminal investigation. See Bell Atlantic

Corp v Twombly, 550 US 554 (2007). The DOJ refuses to produce any

subpoenas, arguing that —— to the extent subpoenas responsive to

Lieff’s FOIA request exist —— responsive subpoenas would be grand

jury subpoenas; which, in the DOJ’s view, fall squarely within

several FOIA exemptions. 

Lieff and DOJ filed cross-motions for summary judgment on

April 29, 2010. Docs #14 & 16. The matter is currently scheduled

for argument on August 12, 2010. Doc #25.

The court deems it prudent to continue the August 12

hearing subject to the civil discovery calendar in the ODD case. 

The clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the parties’ cross-motions for

judgment administratively. Doc #14 & 16. The parties may renotice their motions for hearing when the relevant consolidated

complaint is at issue in the ODD matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00013-RS Document 27 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2