Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03647/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03647-6/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

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION,

____________________________________/

This document relates to:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

STATE OF NEW YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case No. C-02-01486 PJH (JCS)

ORDER RE JUNE 14, 2007 JOINT 

LETTER [DOCKET NO. 155]

Case No. C-06-04333 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C-06-06436 PJH (JCS)

The Court has received a joint letter dated June 14, 2007, [Docket No. 155] from the Micron,

Hynix, Infineon, Elpida, and NEC Defendants (“Defendants”) and Plaintiffs in these cases

(“Plaintiffs”). Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce documents, answer

interrogatories, and produce witnesses for deposition (the “Motion”). The Court held a hearing on

June 22, 2007. Richard L. Schwartz appeared on behalf of Plaintiff State of New York and Emilio

Case 4:02-cv-03647-PJH Document 45 Filed 06/25/07 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

E. Varanini, IV appeared on behalf of Plaintiff State of California. The following appeared on

behalf of the Defendants: Steven H. Bergman and Kenneth O’Rourke (Hynix), Joshua Hess and Joel

Sanders (Micron), Isabelle A. Young and Harrison Frahn, IV (Elpida), Jonathan Schwartz (NEC

Electronics), Julian Brew (Infineon), Scott Morgan (Mosel), and Robert Freitas (Nanya). Having

heard the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS as

follows:

1. Not later than July 2, 2007, Plaintiffs shall identify for Defendants all state, local, or

other municipal agencies or entities on whose behalf Plaintiffs are prosecuting these

actions. In the event that such a list has already been provided in some other format,

Plaintiffs shall identify that list for Defendants.

2. Plaintiffs offered in the joint letter and on the record at the hearing to provide, on a

rolling basis, all information gathered and generated in connection with the damages

survey that Plaintiffs’ are presently conducting. The Court ORDERS that they do so.

3. Plaintiffs agreed, and the Court ORDERS, that with respect to all state Plaintiffs that

have centralized purchasing agencies, those agencies shall produce readily available

documents regarding the purchase of products containing DRAM during the relevant

time period, including but not limited to studies regarding the purchase of DRAMcontaining products, contracts for the purchase of DRAM-containing products,

documents showing the quantities of and the prices paid for DRAM-containing

products, and other purchase documents.

4. Not later than July 2, 2007, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in person

to discuss a plan for the remaining damages discovery in this case. The topics at this

meeting shall include: (1) the timing, scope, and format of information that will be

provided by Plaintiffs that have been or will be generated or gathered in connection

with Plaintiffs’ damages survey; (2) other damages discovery to be provided to

Defendants to enable them to reasonably defend against any damages asserted by

Plaintiffs, including discovery reasonably necessary to test Plaintiffs’ damages survey

or any other damages evidence or theory asserted by Plaintiffs; and (3) the scheduling

Case 4:02-cv-03647-PJH Document 45 Filed 06/25/07 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

of 30(b)(6) depositions regarding centralized purchasing processes (in states that have

such a centralized purchasing process), the location(s) of documents with respect to

such centralized purchasing processes, and the extent to which the purchasing process

of any state is decentralized. 

The parties shall attend a Discovery Conference before the undersigned on July 27, 2007, at

9:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding discovery, including all agreements

reached during their meet-and-confer session and all issues remaining from their meet-and-confer

session, not later than one week before the Discovery Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007

____________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-03647-PJH Document 45 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 3