Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01212/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01212-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-1665 PJH

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al., SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants.

________________________________/

This document also filed in related cases:

Unisys Corp., v. Hynix, et al., C 06-2915 PJH

All American Semiconductor v. Hynix, et al., C 07-1200 PJH

Edge Electronics v. Hynix, et al., C 07-1207 PJH

Jaco Electronics v. Hynix, et al., C07-1212 PJH

DRAM Claims Liquidation Trust v. Hynix, et al., C 07-1381 PJH

________________________________/

Defendants have filed either individually or collectively eleven motions in one or all

six of the above-entitled actions, for what appears to be a total of thirty two motions (two

filed by all defendants in each of the six actions (12), two filed by Nanya in each of the six

actions (12), three filed by all defendants against Sun (3), one filed by all defendants

against Unisys (1), one filed by all defendants against Jaco (1), one filed by NEC against

All American (1), one filed by NEC against Jaco (1), one filed by all defendants against the

Trust (1)). The notices of joinder filed on August 8 and 12, 2008, appear to indicate that all

defendants named in each of the six actions, have joined in the motions filed by their codefendants. In response to the court’s request that the parties meet and confer and

attempt to arrive at a modification of the briefing schedule set forth in Pretrial Order No. 2,

that would stagger the briefing and hearing schedule so that the court might reasonably be

Case 4:07-cv-01212-PJH Document 241 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

able to hear and decide these motions, the parties have filed a stipulation suggesting a

November 12, 2008 hearing date in addition to the December 10, 2008 hearing date. In

addition, counsel for Sun, on behalf of all plaintiffs, has submitted a letter in which he

suggests that a referral to Magistrate Judge Spero, for decision on the one non-dispositive

motion and for report and recommendation on the dispositive motions, might allow the court

to reduce the number of motions it must decide “in the near term while maintaining the

current trial date.”

The court does not consider the suggested referral a practical option in the absence

of consent of the defendants to entry of a final order by Judge Spero. Any matter referred

for a report and recommendation is subject to de novo review upon the objection of either

party to any finding of the magistrate judge. There is every reason to assume that the

losing party would necessarily file objections. De novo review would amount to largely

duplicative work by both judges and would not likely save sufficient time overall, to be

worthwhile. Because of the duplicative nature of de novo review, this district does not

routinely refer dispositive motions to magistrate judges and the court declines to do so

here.

However, the court is mindful of plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining the June 2009 trial

date in view of the prior continuance granted defendants. Upon further consideration, the

court has decided upon a more significant staggering of the pending motions to better

ensure that the June 2009 trial date is maintained. As the Sun Microsystems v. Hynix case

will be tried first, the motions involving Sun will be heard first. Thus, the parties may brief

all motions in accordance with the original schedule found in Pretrial Order No. 2. On

December 10, 2008 (or more likely a special setting on December 18), the court will hear

the following motions: 1) defendants’ motion to dismiss claims in the Sun case under the

FTAIA, 2) defendants’ omnibus motion for summary judgment in the Sun case, 3)

defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert White, 4) defendants’

motion for summary judgment regarding the external manufacturers in the Sun case, 5)

Case 4:07-cv-01212-PJH Document 241 Filed 08/13/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding purchases from Mitsubishi in the Sun

case, and 6) the two motions of Nanya Taiwan and Nanya USA joined by other defendants

for summary judgment in the Sun case. It is difficult to tell without having reviewed the fully

briefed motions, whether this plan is overly ambitious, given the court’s very heavy docket

for the upcoming months. If it becomes apparent to the court after reviewing the papers

that it cannot prepare for hearing on all seven motions, the parties will be notified. At a

minimum, the first three motions will be heard and the remaining four will be rescheduled

for hearing at the end of January. The court will endeavor to issue a ruling on these

motions so that the trial date will not have to be continued, but the court makes no

promises.

The motions pertaining to the other plaintiffs will be scheduled for hearing at a later

time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01212-PJH Document 241 Filed 08/13/08 Page 3 of 3