Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07553/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07553-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ATI Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Defendant
Karol Juskiewicz
Plaintiff
NVIDIA Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1681311.1 1 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed] 

Order C-06-07553 WHA

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

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Charles H. Samel (SBN 182019) 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, California 90071-2007 

Telephone: (213) 485-1234 

Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 

Email: charles.samel@lw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants

ATI Technologies, Inc. and

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KAROL JUSKIEWICZ, 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-06-07553 WHA 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Karol Juskiewicz (“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 8, 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 

pendant state law claims. Plaintiff styled the Complaint as a putative class action.

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 11-1 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 6 Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1681311.1 2 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07553 WHA

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. 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, 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 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 in December 

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 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines 

entered on December 8, 2006 (“December 8 Order”) and the Clerk’s Notice Scheduling Initial 

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 11-1 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 2 of 6 Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1681311.1 3 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07553 WHA

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

Case Management Conference on Reassignment entered on January 23, 2007 (“January 23 

Order”), including the 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 8 Order and the January 23 

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 8 Order and the January 23 

Order. The affected dates include (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early 

settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan (currently February 23, 2007); (2) file 

joint ADR documents (currently February 23, 2007); (3) complete initial disclosures and file the 

Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report (currently March 8, 2007); and (4) the Initial 

Case Management Conference (currently March 15, 2007).

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

as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR 

process selection, and discovery plan – May 3, 2007; (2) file joint ADR documents – May 3, 

2007; (3) complete initial disclosures and file the Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) 

Report – May 17, 2007; and (4) the Initial Case Management Conference – May 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. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 11-1 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 3 of 6 Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1681311.1 4 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07553 WHA

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

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

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Dated: February 2, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: February 1, 2007 Dated: February 1, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP 

By: /s/James Donato By: /s/ Mario Alioto 

 James Donato (146140) Mario Alioto (56433) 

Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NVIDIA CORPORATION KAROL JUSKIEWICZ 

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 11-1 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 4 of 6 Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1681311.1 5 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07553 WHA

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

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: February 2, 2007 

 By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel 

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 11-1 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 5 of 6 Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 5 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1681311.1 6 Stip to Continue Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines and [Proposed]

Order C-06-07553 WHA

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all dates set forth in the December 8, 

2006 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines and the January 

23, 2007 Clerk’s Notice Scheduling Initial Case Management Conference on Reassignment are 

hereby continued as follows: (1) the deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early 

settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan will be May 3, 2007; (2) the deadline to 

file joint ADR documents will be May 3, 2007; (3) the deadline to complete initial disclosures 

and file the Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report will be May 17, 2007; and (4) 

the Initial Case Management Conference will be May 24, 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 Willliam H. Alsup 

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 11-1 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 6 of 6

February 5, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:06-cv-07553-WHA Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 6 of 6