Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143-126/pdf.json

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

---

O'SHEA PARTNERS LLP 

521 FifTH AVENUE 

25th FLOOR 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10175 

SEAN F O'SHEA 

MICHAEL E. PETRELLA 

DANIEL M. HIBSHOOSH 

BRIAN B. ALEXANDER 

AMANDA L DEVEREUX 

MARC D. FEINGOLD 

THOMAS B. GARDNER 

jULIE O'SHEA 

VIA ECF Filing 

Hon. Joseph C. Spero 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

United States District Court 

District of Northern California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

April 20, 2015 

(212) 682-4426 

Fax (212) 682-4437 

www .osheapartners.com 

Re: In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:10-md-2143-RS (JCS) 

Dear Chief Magistrate Judge Spero: 

This firm represents non-party John Doe I, an employee of Defendant Toshiba Samsung 

Storage Technology Korea Corporation ("TSSTK"). We write regarding the hearing on the 

supplemental protective order scheduled for this Friday, April 24, 2015. We believe this hearing 

is premature given the status of Mr. Doe's pending, expedited appeal before the Ninth Circuit, 

and we respectfully request that this Court continue the hearing until after that appeal has been 

resolved. 

On December 22,2014, Mr. Doe filed a Notice of Appeal and an Emergency Motion for 

Injunction Pending Appeal in the Ninth Circuit, seeking a reversal of, inter alia, this Court's 

order denying his motion to quash a subpoena dated July 11, 2014 (the "Subpoena"), served on 

the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). (Dkts. 1452, 1466.) 

That same day, the duty attorney at the Ninth Circuit requested that Mr. Doe's counsel ask DOJ 

if it would voluntarily withhold production of the subpoenaed materials until such time as the 

Ninth Circuit had an opportunity to rule on the emergency motion. DOJ responded that it agreed 

not to produce the recordings. See Ex. I: E-mail from I. Deiss dated Dec. 22, 2014. The duty 

attorney then requested that Mr. Doe's counsel inform her in the event of any change in 

circumstances, to ensure that the Ninth Circuit would have an opportunity to act on the motion 

before any production rendered it moot. 

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1562 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 2
Thereafter, on January 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit expedited the briefing schedule on Mr. 

Doe's appeal and denied Mr. Doe's emergency motion "without prejudice to renewal after the 

district court has approved a protective order governing the release of the recordings in dispute." 

Ex. 2: Order dated Jan. 30, 2015. Based on that expedited briefing schedule, as of today, the 

parties have fully briefed Mr. Doe's appeal and it is pending before the Ninth Circuit. 

The clear intent of the Ninth Circuit's order was to resolve the underlying issues on the 

merits and through full briefing, before any production rendered it moot. However, to the extent 

that the hearing goes forward this Friday and results in the entry of a supplemental protective 

order, that will force Mr. Doe to file another emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit to 

preserve the issues on appeal, and alert the Ninth Circuit to the change in circumstances. That 

process will result in an inefficient and piecemeal adjudication of the issues presented-at a time 

when the Ninth Circuit has made clear its preference to resolve Mr. Does' appeal on the merits 

and on its own expedited timetable. 

We apologize for raising this issue with the Court a relatively short time before the 

scheduled hearing. Until today, our attention had been focused on briefing the Ninth Circuit 

appeal. We realized and wanted to raise this issue now so that those parties traveling for any 

hearing have sufficient time to alter their plans. We have reached out to the other parties to seek 

their agreement to this request. TSSTK consents to the requested continuance. Ex. 3: E-mail 

from B. Lee dated Apr. 20, 2015. DOJ takes no position in opposition to the requested 

continuance. Ex. 4: E-mail from I. Deiss dated Apr. 20, 2015. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs 

object because they believe that there should be one protective order entered with respect to the 

Subpoena, and that entry now is necessary to ensure materials unrelated to John Doe 1 can be 

produced immediately. Ex. 5: E-mail chain dated Apr. 20, 2015. However, Plaintiffs' position 

ignores that entry of a protective order will needlessly burden the Ninth Circuit with additional 

motion practice related to an appeal which has already been fully briefed. 

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court continue sine die the 

discovery hearing currently scheduled for this Friday, April 24, 2015, without prejudice to an 

application to reschedule it after the Ninth Circuit has ruled on Mr. Doe's pending appeal. 

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) 

2 

Very truly yours, 

sf Sean F. 0 'Shea 

Sean F. O'Shea 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Dated: April 21, 2015

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1562 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 2