Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01347/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01347-1/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 DENYING MOTION

This Document Relates To: FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF SETTLEMENT

All INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

State of New York v. Micron et al. 

(C 06-6436 PJH)

______________________________/

This Document Also Relates To:

State of California et al. v. Samsung Elec. et al., 

(C 07-1347 PJH)

State of California, et al. v. Winbond Elec. Co.,

(C 07-2589 PJH)

______________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement with defendants Samsung

and Windbond, came on for hearing before this court on November 14, 2007. Plaintiffs,

private indirect purchasers of DRAM and DRAM-containing products, and various individual

States and their government entities acting through their Attorneys General (collectively

“plaintiffs” or “plaintiff States”), appeared through their respective counsel, Josef D. Cooper,

Daniel J. Mogin, David Boies, Francis Scarpulla, Adam C. Belsky, Joseph M. Patane,

Kathleen E. Foote, Emilio E. Varanini, and Charles M. Kagay. Defendants, both settling

defendants and non-settling defendants, appeared through their counsel, Joel S. Sanders,

Case 4:07-cv-01347-PJH Document 30 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Harrison J. Frahn, Michael W. Scarborough, James L. McGinnis, Julian Brew, Scott E.

Morgan, Matthew D. Thurlow, Howard M. Ullman, Robert B. Pringle, and Michael F.

Tubach. Having read all the papers submitted and carefully considered the relevant legal

authority, the court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval, for the

reasons stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows:

The court is not prepared, at this juncture, to certify the two proposed settlement

classes set forth by the parties, as there is insufficient information from which to conclude

that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23(a) and (b) have been

satisfied. Moreover, to the extent that the proposed settlement classes appear to include

members whose interests conflict, and whose presence may require consideration and/or

addition of subclasses, these issues must be resolved before the court can determine that

certification of the settlement classes is appropriate. 

In view of these concerns, the court is also unprepared to grant preliminary approval

of the Samsung and Winbond settlements. While plaintiffs have provided some necessary 

information regarding the settlement agreements executed by the parties (e.g., settlement

amounts and summary of relevant provisions), without further clarification as to the need

for any subclasses, or a proposed form of class notice or plan of allocation that would

distribute the settlement funds among potential class members, there is simply no

adequate basis upon which the court can independently and adequately determine the

fairness of the settlements vis-a-vis class members. The court thus declines the parties’

request to grant preliminary approval on the record established and to defer approval of the

plan of allocation and form and content of class notice until some later unspecified date. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement is DENIED. The

denial is without prejudice, however, to plaintiffs’ ability to re-file their motion once the

above issues have been resolved. Although the court disagrees with the parties about the

timing of a special master referral, the court does agree that referral to a special master

would assist the parties in developing a plan of allocation and a plan for distribution of class

Case 4:07-cv-01347-PJH Document 30 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

notice and assist the court in its evaluation of the fairness of the proposed settlements. 

Accordingly, the settling parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order referring the

two proposed settlements to a mutually agreeable special master to prepare a report and

recommendation on these subjects. The stipulation and order shall clearly set forth the

scope of the special master’s anticipated duties and shall be submitted no later than

November 28, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01347-PJH Document 30 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 3