Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00581/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00581-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ATI Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Defendant
Advanced Technology Distributors, Inc.
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 

1034506 v1/SF 1. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-07-0581 CW 

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 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a California 

corporation, on behalf of itself and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-07-0581 CW 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES;

ORDER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Advanced Technology Distributors, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Nvidia 

Corporation (“Nvidia”), ATI Technologies ULC 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 January 29, 2007, 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 3:07-cv-00581-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/09/07 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 

1034506 v1/SF 2. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-07-0581 CW 

2. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 46 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, the plaintiffs in some of the other 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 and no 

party has opposed it. 

5. Oral argument on the JPML Motion was held on March 29, 2007 in San Antonio, 

Texas. The parties agree that, at some point, the JPML is likely to order transfer and 

consolidation of these actions. 

6. In light of these facts, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated on February 7, 2007 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 March 29, 2007 hearing date before the JPML, at least one of the dates 

set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order entered on January 29, 2007, including the 

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

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

8. Continuing the dates set forth in the January 29, 2007 Case Management 

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

Case 3:07-cv-00581-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/09/07 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 

1034506 v1/SF 3. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-07-0581 CW 

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 January 29, 2007 Case Management Scheduling 

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

(currently April 13, 2007); the deadline to complete Initial Disclosures, the Joint Case 

Management Statement, and the Rule 26(f) Report (currently April 27, 2007); and the Initial Case 

Management Conference (currently May 4, 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 22, 2007; (2) 

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

26(f) Report – July 6, 2007; and (3) the Initial Case Management Conference – July 24, 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. 

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

Motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 4, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

By: /s/ James Donato

 James Donato (146140) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NVIDIA CORPORATION 

Case 3:07-cv-00581-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/09/07 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 

1034506 v1/SF 4. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-07-0581 CW 

Dated: April 4, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Charles H. Samel

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: April 4, 2007 

DAMRELL, NELSON, SCHRIMP, PALLIOS, 

PACHER & SILVA 

By: /s/ Fred A. Silva

 Fred A. Silva (128464) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTORS, 

INC. 

Case 3:07-cv-00581-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/09/07 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 

1034506 v1/SF 5. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-07-0581 CW 

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: April 4, 2007 

 By: /s/ James Donato_____ 

 James Donato 

Case 3:07-cv-00581-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/09/07 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 

1034506 v1/SF 6. 

STIP TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

C-07-0581 CW 

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all dates set forth in the January 29, 2007 Case 

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

confer and file joint ADR documents will be June 22, 2007; (2) the deadline to complete Initial 

Disclosures, the Joint Case Management Statement, and the Rule 26(f) Report will be July 6, 

2007; and (3) the Initial Case Management Conference will be July 24, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. 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. 

4/9/07 

Dated: __________________ 

 

 _____________________________ 

 The Honorable Claudia Wilken 

Case 3:07-cv-00581-WHA Document 12 Filed 04/09/07 Page 6 of 6