Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-57/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

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

ORDER RE STIPULATION

RE ADMISSIBILITY

This Document Relates to:

All Direct Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

On September 18, 2006, the court issued an order in response to defendants’

objections to Magistrate Judge Spero’s discovery order regarding the authentication of

documents and business records. The court’s order set forth applicable guidelines

regarding the issue, and directed the parties to engage in a further meet and confer in view

of those guidelines. The parties were ordered to file a stipulation resolving the dispute by

September 30, 2006. Now, the court is in receipt of two letters filed by the plaintiffs and

certain defendants on the one hand, and the remaining defendants on the other, in which

the parties state that although they have reached general agreement as to a stipulation,

they are at an impasse with respect to one final issue. Specifically, certain defendants

cannot agree on the current stipulation unless the sentence contained in paragraph 3 (page

2, line 26 through page 3, line 1) is replaced with the following sentence: ”The making of a

timely objection is itself sufficient to negate the agreement as to admissibility set forth

above in this paragraph.” 

Preliminarily, the court notes that the parties have diligently sought to resolve the

present dispute in view of the court’s prior order, and commends the parties on having

generally set forth a workable approach for the authentication of exhibits. 

Substantively, however, the present dispute seems unnecessary. To the extent that

plaintiffs (and certain defendants) believe that the above sentence would abrogate the

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1078 Filed 10/04/06 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

2

agreement as a whole or allow for an unduly large number of objections, the Nanya and

Mosel Vitelic defendants have asserted in writing that they do not intend “to make blanket

objections in connection with dispositive motions,” and do not seek to abrogate the

stipulated agreement, but simply wish to preserve their right to object to the admission of

any document they believe to be inadmissible. Indeed, defendants appear to read the

above statement as simply stating that a timely objection to a document will negate the

agreement as to admissibility for that document. 

Moreover, plaintiffs’ alternative sentence, which is currently included in the

stipulation, is unclear. As stated, that sentence states that the making of a timely objection

is “sufficient to preserve any good faith assertion that a document is inadmissible.” 

However, it is unclear whether plaintiffs mean this phrase to state that, in the event a

defendant objects to the admissibility of a document, the objection serves only to preserve

that defendant’s stated belief of inadmissibility, but would technically allow the document to

be admitted, or whether such an objection would serve to preserve the objecting party’s

appellate rights. If this is in fact plaintiffs’ intent, it would prevent a process whereby

defendants are given the opportunity to make truly meaningful objections. In other words,

each party, if it decides to object to the admissibility of any document, must be able to do

so with respect to that document, and obtain a ruling from the court thereon. 

To that end, and in view of the representations made by both parties in their letters

before the court, the court suggests that the parties revise the stipulation so that in place of

the disputed sentence, it reads: “The making of a timely objection to the admissibility of

any document will require the court to resolve the objection prior to relying on the document

in determining the merits of the parties’ dispositive motions.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1078 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2