Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07418/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07418-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ATI Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Defendant
Trong Nguyen
Plaintiff
Nvidia Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1025020 v1/SF 1. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-06-07418 EDL 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

STEPHEN C. NEAL (170085) (sneal@cooley.com) 

JAMES DONATO (146140) (jdonato@cooley.com) 

JOHN C. DWYER (136533) (dwyerjc@cooley.com) 

JEFFREY M. GUTKIN (216083) (jgutkin@cooley.com) 

101 California Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 

Telephone: (415) 693-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NVIDIA CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TRONG NGUYEN, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-06-07418 EDL 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES;

PROPOSED ORDER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Trong Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Nvidia Corporation (“Nvidia”), ATI 

Technologies, Inc. and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (collectively “AMD”) hereby jointly 

request the Court to continue the initial case management conference and related deadlines in this 

action as follows. 

1. On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action (“Complaint”), 

which alleges claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and under state antitrust 

and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff styled the Complaint as a putative class action. 

Case 3:06-cv-07418-WHA Document 13 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 6
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1025020 v1/SF 2. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-06-07418 EDL 

2. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 23 other complaints have been filed in 

this and other judicial districts. All of these complaints also allege federal and/or state law 

antitrust claims against Nvidia and AMD and are styled as putative class actions. 

3. On December 8, 2006, Plaintiff (in conjunction with other plaintiffs with actions 

pending in this district) filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

(“JPML” or “Panel”) to transfer and consolidate in this judicial district all existing and 

subsequently filed antitrust actions related to the claims alleged in the Complaint (“JPML 

Motion”). The JPML Motion is currently pending in In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust 

Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1826. 

4. On January 16, 2007, AMD and Nvidia filed a response with the JPML supporting 

consolidation and transfer of these actions to the Northern District of California, San Jose 

Division, or, in the alternative, in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. To 

date, every party responding to the JPML Motion has supported consolidation and transfer in 

either the Northern or Central Districts of California. No party has opposed consolidation and 

transfer. 

5. Some of the plaintiffs in the potentially related antitrust actions and all Defendants 

have requested that the Panel hear oral argument on the JPML Motion. The parties expect that if 

the Panel does hear oral argument, the hearing will occur in March 2007. The parties agree that, 

at some point subsequent to that hearing, the JPML is likely to order transfer and consolidation of 

these actions. 

6. In light of these facts, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated on December 20, 2006 to 

extend the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint to 30 days after (1) the order 

resolving the JPML motion and (2) the filing and service of any subsequent consolidated 

complaint, without prejudice to the right of Nvidia or AMD to seek additional time to answer or 

otherwise respond to the Complaint for good cause shown. 

7. Given the likelihood of a March 2007 hearing date before the JPML, the dates set 

forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order entered on December 4, 2006, including the 

Case 3:06-cv-07418-WHA Document 13 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 6
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1025020 v1/SF 3. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-06-07418 EDL 

deadlines imposed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, Local Rule 16, and ADR Local Rule 

3.5, will come to pass before the JPML acts on the pending motion. 

8. Continuing the dates set forth in the December 4, 2006 Case Management 

Scheduling Order would avoid the expenditure of unnecessary judicial resources until it is 

determined whether this action will remain pending in this Court. It would also ensure 

consistency in pretrial rulings and be convenient for the parties, including Plaintiff. 

9. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court 

order a continuance of the dates set forth in the December 4, 2006 Case Management Scheduling 

Order. The affected dates include the deadline to meet and confer and file joint ADR documents 

(currently February 20, 2007); the deadline to complete Initial Disclosures, the Joint Case 

Management Statement, and the Rule 26(f) Report (currently March 6, 2007); and the Initial Case 

Management Conference (currently March 13, 2007). 

10. The parties request that the Court continue the above referenced schedule as 

follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer and file joint ADR documents – June 19, 2007; (2) 

the deadline to complete Initial Disclosures, the Joint Case Management Statement, and the Rule 

26(f) Report – July 3, 2007; and the Initial Case Management Conference – July 10, 2007. Such 

a continuance will allow this matter to move forward promptly in the event that the JPML Motion 

is denied and further proceedings before this Court are necessary. 

11. Except as described in Paragraph 6, the parties have sought no previous 

modification of the timing of any event or deadline set by the Court. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:06-cv-07418-WHA Document 13 Filed 01/30/07 Page 3 of 6
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1025020 v1/SF 4. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-06-07418 EDL 

12. The parties agree to notify the Court promptly when the Panel rules on the JPML 

Motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: January 29, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

By: /s/ 

 James Donato (146140) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NVIDIA CORPORATION 

Dated: January 29, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ 

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: January 29, 2007 

FURTH LEHMANN & GRANT LLP 

By: /s/ 

 Jon T. King (205703) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Trong Nguyen 

Case 3:06-cv-07418-WHA Document 13 Filed 01/30/07 Page 4 of 6
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1025020 v1/SF 5. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-06-07418 EDL 

FILER’S ATTESTATION: 

 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of 

perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories. 

Dated: January 29, 2007 

 By: /s/ 

 James Donato 

Case 3:06-cv-07418-WHA Document 13 Filed 01/30/07 Page 5 of 6
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1025020 v1/SF 6. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-06-07418 EDL 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all dates set forth in the December 4, 2006 Case 

Management Scheduling Order are hereby continued as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and 

confer and file joint ADR documents will be June 19, 2007; (2) the deadline to complete Initial 

Disclosures, the Joint Case Management Statement, and the Rule 26(f) Report will be July 3, 

2007; and (3) the Initial Case Management Conference will be July 10, 2007. The parties are 

ordered to notify the Court promptly when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules 

upon the motion for consolidation pending in MDL Docket No. 1826, In re Graphics Processing 

Units Antitrust Litigation. 

Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered. 

Dated: __________________ 

 

 _____________________________ 

 The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte 

Case 3:06-cv-07418-WHA Document 13 Filed 01/30/07 Page 6 of 6