Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143-154/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS WITH BENQ, 

PIONEER, PLDS, QSI, SONY, TEAC, AND TOSHIBA/SAMSUNG – Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS

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

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

______________________________________

This Document Relates to:

DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTIONS 

Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS

MDL No. 2143

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENTS WITH BENQ, PIONEER, 

PLDS, QSI, SONY, TEAC, AND 

TOSHIBA/SAMSUNG

Date: April 14, 2016

Time: 3:00 p.m.

Judge: Honorable Richard Seeborg

Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1842 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 5
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS WITH BENQ, 

PIONEER, PLDS, QSI, SONY, TEAC, AND TOSHIBA/SAMSUNG - Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS

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

On March 24, 2016, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlements with (1) BenQ 

Corp. and BenQ America Corp.; (2) Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer North America, Inc; Pioneer 

Electronics (USA) Inc.; and Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd.; (3) Koninklijke Philips 

Electronics N.V.; Lite-On It Corp.; Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp.; and Philips & LiteOn Digital Solutions USA, Inc.; (4) Quanta Storage Inc. and Quanta Storage America, Inc.; (5) 

Sony Corp.; Sony Optiarc, Inc.; Sony Optiarc America, Inc.; Sony NEC Optiarc Inc.; and Sony 

Electronics, Inc.; (6) TEAC Corp. and TEAC America, Inc.; and (7) Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba America Information Systems, 

Inc.; Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp.; and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology 

Korea Corp. (collectively, “Settling Defendants”). The Court, having reviewed the memorandum,

the settlement agreements with Settling Defendants (“Settlement Agreements” or the 

“Settlements”), the pleadings and other papers on file in this action, and the statements of counsel 

and the parties, hereby finds that final approval of the Settlements should be GRANTED.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all parties 

to the Settlement Agreements, including all members of the Class.

2. For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise set forth herein, the Court adopts 

and incorporates the definitions contained in the Settlement Agreements.

3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), Saveri & Saveri, Inc. is appointed as counsel for 

the Class. Saveri & Saveri, Inc. has and will fairly and competently represent the interests of the 

Class. 

4. By Order dated December 15, 2015 (Dkt. No. 1758), the Court certified for 

settlement a class defined as follows:

All individuals and entities who, during the period from January 1, 2004 until at 

least January 1, 2010 (the “Class Period”) purchased one or more Optical Disk 

Drives in the United States directly from the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or their 

affiliates. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, 

affiliates, and all governmental entities. As used herein the term “Optical Disc 

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1842 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 5
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS WITH BENQ, 

PIONEER, PLDS, QSI, SONY, TEAC, AND TOSHIBA/SAMSUNG - Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS

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

Drive” includes (a) a drive sold by a Defendant or its subsidiary or affiliate as a 

separate unit that is to be inserted into, or incorporated in, an electronic device; (b) a 

drive sold by a Defendant or its subsidiary or affiliate as a separate unit that is to be 

attached to an electronic device through an external interface such as a Universal 

Serial Bus connection; and (c) an internal drive sold as a component of a laptop or 

desktop computer by a Defendant or its subsidiary or affiliate.

5. The persons/entities identified in Exhibit C to the Declaration of Rachel Christman

re Dissemination of BenQ, Pioneer, PLDS, QSI, Sony, TEAC, and TSST Notice to Class Members 

and Claims Process, filed on March 24, 2016, have validly requested exclusion from the Class and,

therefore, are excluded. Such persons/entities are not included in or bound by this Order. Such 

persons/entities are not entitled to any recovery of the settlement proceeds obtained through the 

Settlement Agreements.

6. The settlement class definition as set forth above and as used in this Order is for 

settlement purposes only. It has no binding effect on the Court or on the indirect-purchaser 

plaintiffs for any other purpose, including but not limited to the filing or resolution of any 

motion(s) for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23.

7. The Court further finds that the prerequisites to a class action under Rule 23 are 

satisfied for settlement purposes in that: (a) there are hundreds of geographically dispersed class 

members, making joinder of all members impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact 

common to the class which predominate over individual issues; (c) the claims or defenses of the 

class plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (d) the plaintiffs will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class, and have retained counsel experienced in antitrust class 

action litigation who have, and will continue to, adequately represent the class; and (e) a class 

action is superior to individual actions.

8. The Court hereby finally approves and confirms the settlements set forth in the 

Settlement Agreements and finds that said settlements are, in all respects, fair, reasonable and 

adequate to the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

9. This Court hereby dismisses on the merits and with prejudice the Action in favor of 

Settling Defendants, with all parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1842 Filed 04/14/16 Page 3 of 5
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS WITH BENQ, 

PIONEER, PLDS, QSI, SONY, TEAC, AND TOSHIBA/SAMSUNG - Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS

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

10. Settling Defendants are hereby and forever released and discharged with respect to 

any and all claims or causes of action which the Releasors had or have arising out of or related to 

any of the Released Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreements.

11. The notice given to the Class of the settlements was the best notice practicable 

under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members of the Class who could be 

identified through reasonable efforts. Said notice provided due and adequate notice of those 

proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlements set forth in the 

Settlement Agreements, to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the 

requirements of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

requirements of due process.

12. The Plan of Allocation set forth in the Class notice is, in all respects, fair, adequate, 

and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court hereby grants final approval of the Plan of Allocation.

13. Without affecting the finality of the Judgments in any way, this Court hereby retains 

continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of these settlements and any distribution to Class 

members pursuant to further orders of this Court; (b) disposition of the Settlement Fund; (c) 

hearing and determining applications by Plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, 

interest, and incentive awards; (d) the Action until the Final Judgments contemplated hereby have

become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties all have been 

performed pursuant to the Agreement; (e) hearing and ruling on any matters relating to the Plan of 

Allocation of settlement proceeds; and (f) all parties to the Action and Releasors for the purpose of

enforcing and administering the Settlement Agreements and the mutual releases and other 

documents contemplated by, or executed in connection with the Settlement Agreements.

14. In the event that the settlements do not become effective in accordance with the 

terms of the Settlement Agreements, then the Judgments shall be rendered null and void and shall 

be vacated, and in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith shall 

be null and void and the parties shall be returned to their respective positions ex ante.

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1842 Filed 04/14/16 Page 4 of 5
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS WITH BENQ, 

PIONEER, PLDS, QSI, SONY, TEAC, AND TOSHIBA/SAMSUNG - Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS

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

15. The Court finds, pursuant to Rules 54(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, that Final Judgments of Dismissal with prejudice as to Settling Defendants

(“Judgments”) should be entered and further finds that there is no just reason for delay in the entry 

of the Judgments, as Final Judgments, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreements.

Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter Judgment forthwith for Settling 

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________ ________________________________

Hon. Richard Seeborg

United States District Judge

4/14/16

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1842 Filed 04/14/16 Page 5 of 5