Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827-185/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

This Order Relates to:

ALL CASES

 /

No. M 07-1827 SI

MDL. No. 1827

ORDER CLARIFYING STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER

On April 30, 2010, the Court heard argument on the motions brought by the States of

Washington and Illinois, and by the AUO defendants, to modify or clarify the Stipulated Protective

Order. (Docket Nos. 1659, 1661).

After consideration of the briefing and argument on this matter, the Court hereby clarifies that

the Stipulated Protective Order does not and was not intended to interfere with any lawfully issued State

subpoena or civil investigative demand. The Court finds it unnecessary to modify the Stipulated

Protective Order. If any party receives a discovery request, subpoena or civil investigative demand

(“CID”) that would compel disclosure of information or items designated in this action as “confidential”

or “highly confidential,” that party must comply with Section 8 of the Stipulated Protective Order, which

requires, inter alia, that the “Receiving Party” provide notice of the discovery request, subpoena or CID

to the Designating Party, and that the receiving party inform the party who caused the discovery request,

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1729 Filed 05/04/10 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

1

 The Stipulated Protective Order defines “Receiving Party” as “a Party that receives Disclosure

or Discovery Matter from a Producing Party,” and “Designating Party” as “a Party or non-party that

designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as

‘Confidential’ or ‘Highly Confidential.’”

2

subpoena or CID to issue of the existence of the Stipulated Protective Order. 1 To the extent that any

party to the Stipulated Protective Order wishes to challenge any aspect of a discovery request, subpoena

or CID, including the question of whether the party has “control” over the relevant documents, Section

8 of the Stipulated Protective Order provides that the party shall do so in the issuing court. 

Additionally, in order to enforce the prior orders of this Court with regard to discovery and the

Department of Justice’s ongoing criminal investigation, the Court directs that any party who receives

documents marked “confidential” or “highly confidential” pursuant to a discovery request, subpoena

or CID shall not provide those documents to the U.S. Department of Justice absent further order of this

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1729 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2