Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819-65/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

W02-WEST:1LDC2\402554631.2 -1- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING 

ORDER GRANTING IPP CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION

 

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

FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA (41059) 

CRAIG C. CORBITT (83251) 

CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI (136446) 

JANE YI (257893) 

ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 693-0700 

Facsimile: (415) 693-0770

fscarpulla@zelle.com

ccorbitt@zelle.com 

Lead and Liaison Counsel for 

Indirect Purchaser Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE STATIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (SRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Case No. M:07-CV-01819-CW 

MDL No. 1819 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

AMENDING ORDER GRANTING IP 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS 

This Document Relates to: CERTIFICATION 

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2009, the Court issued an Order Granting Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Denying Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions (Dkt. 

903) (“Order Granting Certification”), wherein the Court certified a nationwide injunctive class of 

indirect purchasers of SRAM pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), as well 

as twenty-seven (27) state classes of indirect purchasers of SRAM seeking damages and/or 

restitution under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); and 

WHEREAS, the Court’s Order certified a nationwide injunctive class of indirect purchasers 

of SRAM pursuant to the definition of that class as provided in the Complaint; and 

WHEREAS, Indirect Purchaser (“IP”) Plaintiffs, in their Notice Of Motion And Motion Of 

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs For Class Certification, dated January 29, 2009 (“Notice Of Motion 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 981 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 4
W02-WEST:1LDC2\402554631.2 -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING 

ORDER GRANTING IPP CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION

 

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

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

And Motion”) (Dkt. 645), at page 2 n.1, and in their Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Class 

Certification, dated January 29, 2009 (Dkt. 645-2), at page 5, expressly limited the definition and 

scope of each of the requested state plaintiff classes to purchasers of the following "products 

containing SRAM": "handheld computer devices (also known as personal digital assistants ('PDAs') 

and smart phones), desktop computers (with separate level 2 cache memory), servers, mainframes, 

Voice-Over Internet Protocol Systems, routers, switches, modems, storage area networks and 

firewalls"; and 

WHEREAS, the briefing, discovery and oral argument on the IP Plaintiffs' Motion For Class 

Certification all proceeded and were limited in scope as to the requested state plaintiff classes based 

on the foregoing limited definition of "products containing SRAM"; and 

WHEREAS, the foregoing limited definition of "products containing SRAM" was not 

explicitly referenced in the definitions of the state plaintiff classes set forth on pages 29 to 36 of the 

Order Granting Certification; and 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid any ambiguity with respect to the "products containing 

SRAM" at issue with respect to the state plaintiff classes certified in the Order Granting Certification 

for purposes of further litigation of this matter, without effect on the scope of any settlement class; 

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the 

parties identified below, and subject to the Court’s approval, that: 

The Court's Order Granting Certification be amended to add the following language, which is 

substantively identical to language appearing in IP Plaintiffs' Notice Of Motion And Motion, on 

page 36 following the Court's descriptions of the state classes and before the class representatives are 

identified beginning on lines 22-23 and which is done for purposes of the litigation of these matters: 

"Products containing SRAM" as used in each of the foregoing state 

plaintiff class definitions shall be limited for litigation purposes to 

handheld computer devices (also known as personal digital assistants 

("PDAs") and smart phones), desktop computers (with separate level 2 

cache memory), servers, mainframes, Voice-Over Internet Protocol 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 981 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 4
W02-WEST:1LDC2\402554631.2 -3- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING 

ORDER GRANTING IPP CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION

 

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

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

Systems, routers, switches, modems, storage area networks and 

firewalls. 

Dated: April 1, 2010 By: /s/ Christopher T. Micheletti 

 CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI 

ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL 

 & MASON LLP 

Lead and Liaison Counsel for IndirectPurchaser Class 

Dated: April 1, 2010 

Dated: April 1, 2010 

By: 

By: 

/s/ Michael W. Scarborough 

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH 

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & 

HAMPTON LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., 

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

/s/ Gary A. Winters 

 GARY A. WINTERS 

MAYER BROWN LLP

Attorney for Defendant 

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation 

Additional Defendants and Counsel: 

By /s/ Belinda Lee

BELINDA LEE 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba 

America Electronic Components, Inc. 

By /s/ Matthew S. Leddicotte

MATTHEW S. LEDDICOTTE (pro hac vice) 

WHITE & CASE LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Etron Technology Corporation and Etron 

Technology America, Inc. 

By /s/ Joshua D. N. Hess

JOSHUA D. N. HESS 

GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron 

Semiconductor Products, Inc.

By /s/ Michael F. Tubach

MICHAEL F. TUBACH 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc., and 

Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. 

By /s/ Craig P. Seebald

CRAIG P. SEEBALD (pro hac vice) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Renesas Technology Corp., Renesas 

By /s/ Paul Griffin 

PAUL GRIFFIN 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

Attorney for Defendants 

NEC Electronics Corporation and NEC 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 981 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 4
W02-WEST:1LDC2\402554631.2 -4- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING 

ORDER GRANTING IPP CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION

 

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

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

Technology America, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation, and Mitsubishi Electric & 

Electronics USA, Inc. 

Electronics America, Inc. and 

Liaison Counsel for Defendants

I, Christopher T. Micheletti, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that 

the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 

 /s/ Christopher T. Micheletti 

 Christopher T. Micheletti

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:April 5, 2010 ______________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Northern District of California 

3220766.3 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 981 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 4