Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

urt

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS No. M-02-1486 PJH (JCS)

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION,

___________________________________ ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO COMPEL

This document relates to:

ALL ACTIONS.

___________________________________/

By letter dated May 30, 2006, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Defendants brought to the

Court’s attention a dispute concerning the discovery of information pertaining to “Plaintiffs’

contracts with their DRAM customers, about how Plaintiffs determined the amounts they charged, or

about the amounts they charged in relation to what they paid for DRAM.” Joint Letter of May 30,

2006, at 1. Having reviewed the arguments of counsel, the Court rules as follows:

Treating the Joint Letter as a motion to compel, it is DENIED. See In re Vitamins Antitrust

Litig., 198 F.R.D. 296, 301 (D.D.C. 2000). While the Court cautions the parties that while, in

general, instructions not to answer on relevance grounds are not permitted by the DISCOVERY

PLAN, the objection in question was raised before the DISCOVERY PLAN. Nonetheless,

Defendants have waited until after the hearing on class certification to raise the issue with the Court. 

The Court concludes that any marginal relevance that responses to the questions at issue might have

to the Direct Purchaser cases is outweighed by the unnecessary burden this discovery would impose

on the parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2006

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 915 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 1