Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01381/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01381-32/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-1665 PJH

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al., PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2

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

________________________________/

A case management conference attended by counsel for all parties was held on

January 24, 2008. Although defendants’ request to extend expert discovery deadlines

precipitated the scheduling of the conference, a number of other issues were discussed as

set forth below.

Pretrial Schedule

The October 2008 trial date is VACATED. The new pretrial schedule is as follows:

Deadline for defendants’ expert reports March 7, 2008

Deadline for plaintiffs’ expert rebuttal reports May 2, 2008

Deadline for expert discovery May 23, 2007

Deadline for filing dispositive motions July 30, 2008

Deadline for filing oppositions September 24, 2008

Case 4:07-cv-01381-PJH Document 261 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Deadline for filing replies October 29, 2008

Hearing on dispositive motions December 10, 2008, 9:00 am

Pretrial conference April 23, 2009, 2:30 pm

Trial June 1, 2009, 8:30 am

No further modifications of this schedule will likely be approved by the court. This

order supercedes Pretrial Order No. 1, filed on June 25, 2007, with respect to the pretrial

schedule. 

Discovery

The revised pretrial schedule extends the deadlines for expert discovery only. Fact

discovery has already closed and will not be reopened. The court will approve no further

extensions on outstanding fact discovery. The motions to compel and other discovery

matters currently pending before Judge Spero, will be handled by him in due course and he

may, of course, set a deadline beyond the discovery cutoff date for completion of any

discovery event that he orders. The stipulations filed by plaintiffs and Samsung on

December 26, 2007 and January 16, 2008 (corrected January 23, 2008) to extend the date

to file motions to compel fact discovery, are referred to Judge Spero for resolution.

Sealing Requests

The court is aware of four pending requests to seal documents; two were filed on

December 28, 2008, and the others were filed on January 10 and 16, 2008. It appears to

the court that they all pertain to discovery matters pending before Judge Spero, and will

accordingly be referred to his chambers for resolution. The parties are advised that the

court rarely grants such requests in conjunction with dispositive motions or trial given the

heightened showing required when the merits are under consideration. A showing of good

cause may suffice to entitle the moving party to a sealing order in conjunction with

discovery motions, but a showing of compelling circumstances must be made to obtain a

sealing order in conjunction with dispositive motions and trial. The parties are referred to

the court’s standing order for sealed and confidential documents. 

Case 4:07-cv-01381-PJH Document 261 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Courtesy Copies

Several, but by no means all, counsel are not complying with the requirement that a

courtesy copy of each document be provided to chambers no later than noon of the day

following the filing of the document. Compliance is particularly important for administrative

motions and matters that require a quick response. Chambers staff will no longer

download copies of e-filed briefs and proposed orders, and if a chambers copy is not

provided, no action will be taken by the court on the request.

Docketing

Simply put, the dockets in these cases are a mess. While the court expects counsel

to do a better job of keeping track of which motions and dockets pertain to which parties,

and to discontinue using the docket as a message center, the court acknowledges that

prior orders may account for some of the problem. The August 29, 2006 order was the

court’s first attempt to devise a plan for keeping the docket straight. The opt-out parties

were ordered to file all papers only in the individual case to which such papers relate. 

However, those documents that pertained to other opt-out cases were to be filed in those

cases as well. A week later, on September 6, 2006, the court ruled on a motion by Unisys

Corporation to consolidate its matter with Microsystem’s. In approving consolidation, the

court ordered that the two consolidated cases retain their individual case numbers and that

all pretrial documents be filed in both cases. This order applied only to the Sun

Microsystems and Unisys actions. Honeywell was pending at the time, but was not part of

the consolidation. The court has been unable to locate a subsequent order on this question

following the relation of the other four opt-out cases in 2007. Thus it appears that counsel

may have perhaps just been following the September 6, 2006 order in Docket No. C 06-

2915, by filing all papers in all dockets.

This might explain why Samsung’s counsel filed its recent stipulation with plaintiffs in

all cases even though it claims to be a defendant in only two cases – C 07-1207 PJH and C

07-1381 PJH. Notwithstanding Samsung’s counsel’s insistence that Samsung is a

Case 4:07-cv-01381-PJH Document 261 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

defendant in only two cases, it is listed as a defendant in a third case, C 07-1200 PJH, as

well. More troublesome, however, is the fact that, with a few exceptions, every plaintiff is

listed as a plaintiff on each of the six dockets even though the complaints in each of the six

cases, names only one plaintiff. Additionally, for some reason, Samsung is listed as a

plaintiff instead of a defendant on at least two of the dockets. It is impossible to determine

how or why these docketing errors were made, but these problems along with those

described by the court at the conference require that we take steps to correct the docketing

errors and that the correct docketing procedure be stated with clarity. 

First, the orders consolidating any and all cases are VACATED and all opt-out cases

are ordered de-consolidated. The cases remain related to each other (and to the MDL C

02-1486 PJH) and all discovery must continue to be coordinated. 

Second, to assist the court in correcting the dockets, counsel for each plaintiff shall

review the docket and prepare a statement listing all parties in all pleadings that have been

filed, along with counsel for each of the parties. This statement must then be provided to

counsel for defendants to confirm the accuracy of each designation. Because the

defendants have successfully and efficiently coordinated all aspects of the defense of these

cases, the court designates one attorney, Julian Brew, as the depositary for the

statements. Mr. Brew shall thereafter coordinate the review by defense counsel. Once all

parties confirm the accuracy of the designations, the statement (or six separate

statements) shall be submitted to the court in hard copy. This statement should not be filed

or e-filed. The parties are requested to complete this task within two weeks.

Third, future filings in these six cases should be made only in the docket for which a

document pertains and not in all dockets, unless the document pertains to all dockets. If a

party is not listed as a party in a particular docket, that party’s documents should not be

filed in that docket. This problem is likely to arise when only one (or fewer than all)

defendants file a motion or when a plaintiff files a motion against only one (or fewer than all

defendants). The case caption should include only those cases to which the document

Case 4:07-cv-01381-PJH Document 261 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

pertains and should be in the format of the caption appearing in this order.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01381-PJH Document 261 Filed 01/28/08 Page 5 of 5