Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01665/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01665-42/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC., ET AL. v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., ET AL.,

(Case No. C-06-01665 PJH (Consolidated))

UNISYS CORPORATION v. HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., ET AL.

(Case No. C-06-02915 PJH)

ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., ET AL.

(Case No. C-07-01200 PJH)

EDGE ELECTRONICS, INC., v. HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., ET AL.

(Case No. C-07-01207 PJH)

JACO ELECTRONICS, INC., v. HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., ET AL.

(Case No. C-07-01212 PJH)

DRAM CLAIMS LIQUIDATION TRUST, 

BY ITS TRUSTEE WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A. v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

ET AL. 

(Case No. C-07-01381 PJH)

_____________________________________/

Case No. C-06-01665 PJH (JCS)(Consolidated) 

Case No. C-06-02915 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C-07-01200 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C-07-01207 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C-07-01212 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C-07-01381 PJH (JCS)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF

DECEMBER 28, 2007

Docket Numbers: 256 (C-06-01665)

 177 (C-06-02915)

 126 (C-07-01200)

 130 (C-06-01207)

 127 (C-07-01212)

 212 (C-07-01381)

Defendants and Plaintiffs in these cases submitted a joint letter dated December 28, 2007,

regarding settlement agreements (the “motion”). The motion came on for hearing on January 25,

2008, at 9:30 a.m. The following counsel appeared: David Cross, Jerome Murphy, and Kerry

Malloy (Sun/Unisys); James McCarthy (DRAM Liquidation Trust); Joshua Hess (Micron); Steven

Bergman (Hynix); Harrison Frahn IV and Jason Bussey (Elpida); Julian Brew (Infineon); Eva Chan

(NEC Electronics America/NEC); and Howard Ullman (Nanya). For the reasons stated on the

record and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. After the filing of any motion for summary judgment in which the testimony or

declaration of any employee or former employee of a settling defendant is cited, any

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 304 Filed 01/25/08 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

party may apply to the undersigned for the disclosure of settlement agreements

entered into between the plaintiff and the relevant settling defendant in such an

action. The Court will consider such applications on an expedited basis. Application

for disclosure of the relevant settlement agreements may be made by a two-page

letter. Oppositions shall be due within forty-eight (48) hours and will also consist of

a two-page letter. The parties are directed to meet and confer in advance of such an

application in an effort to resolve the dispute.

2. In each of these cases, thirty (30) days before the pretrial conference statement is due,

plaintiff shall produce to defense counsel all settlement agreements between plaintiff

and any settling defendant in such action.

3. All settlement agreements produced pursuant to this Order shall be produced on an

“attorneys’ eyes only” basis under the Protective Order in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2008 

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 304 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2