Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04332/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04332-13/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLINTON REILLY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-04332 SI

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

On November 28, 2006, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, preventing defendants

from entering into any agreements of the nature described in an April 26, 2006 letter between Hearst and

MediaNews. The Court also ordered defendants to show cause, before 4:00 p.m. on December 6, 2006,

why they should not be preliminarily enjoined, on the same grounds, pending trial of this action in April

2007.

Defendants Gannett Co. and Stephens Group have filed a statement taking no position in

response to the order to show cause. Defendants Hearst, MediaNews, and California Newspapers

Partnership have filed a response opposing imposition of a preliminary injunction. 

Defendants base their opposition to the preliminary injunction primarily on the fact that they have

no intention of pursuing any agreements of the nature described in the April 26 letter between now and

the trial date. See, e.g., Asher Decl. ¶ 5; Lodovic Decl. ¶ 7. The Court does not doubt the sincerity of

defendants’ representations. However, the Court is concerned that denying the preliminary injunction

may leave defendants unsure of whether they are free to immediately pursue such agreements. The April

26 letter is in the form of a potentially binding agreement, and defendants have expressed the desire, if

not the intent, to pursue the cooperative agreements discussed in the letter. The Court therefore wants

Case 3:06-cv-04332-SI Document 112 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

to leave no confusion as to its expectation that defendants will comply with their stated intent not to

pursue any of the agreements at issue; the only way to do so definitively is to issue the preliminary

injunction.

For the reasons set forth in the temporary restraining order, the Court hereby preliminarily

ENJOINS defendants from entering into any agreements of the nature described in the April 26, 2006

letter, pending trial of this action in April 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04332-SI Document 112 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 2