Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-23/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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST No. M 02-1486 PJH

LITIGATION

_______________________________/ ORDER

This document Relates to:

All Indirect Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

Before the court is a Stipulation and Proposed Order entered into by all parties, which

would result in a stay of pretrial activity in all transferred indirect purchaser actions, and any

future indirect purchaser actions transferred to, or filed in, this district. The stipulation would

not apply to Petro Computer Systems, Inc. et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C

05-2472 PJH, an indirect purchaser action previously filed in this district. The stipulation

contemplates that all previously filed motions (including those filed in Arps v. Micron

Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. C 05-4076 PJH; McKinnon v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al.,

Case No. C 05-3492 PJH; Maher v. Elpida Memory, Inc., et al., Case No. C 05-3629 PJH;

and Smith v. Micron Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 05-3493 PJH) would remain “pending

and on file” with the court. 

While the court approves the Stipulation and Proposed Order insofar as it stays all

further action on indirect purchaser cases other than Petro, motions may not remain “pending

and on file” for an indefinite, unspecified period of time on this court’s docket. Rather, if the

parties do not wish to pursue those motions currently, they must withdraw them without

prejudice to re-filing at a later time. The parties may submit a revised 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 684 Filed 01/03/06 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

1 The court also notes that the parties’ stipulation incorrectly states that motions to

dismiss are on file in McKinnon (Case No. C 05-3492 PJH), Maher (Case No. 05-3629 PJH),

and Smith (Case No. 05-3493 PJH). In fact, no such motion has been filed in any of these

actions, and the parties are encouraged to correct this error in any revised stipulation. 

2

stipulation addressing the court’s concerns.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2006

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 684 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2