Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00085/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00085-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ATI Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Defendant
Nvidia Corporation
Defendant
Daniel Perkel
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 1

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADR DEADLINES 

C-07-00085 CW 

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 

 charles.samel@lw.com 

 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI Technologies, Inc. and 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL PERKEL, 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-07-00085 CW 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

CASE MANAGEMENT AND ADR

DEADLINES; ORDER AS MODIFIED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Daniel Perkel (“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 January 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed the 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. 

2. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 35 other complaints have been 

filed in this and other judicial districts. All of these complaints allege federal antitrust claims 

Case 3:07-cv-00085-WHA Document 14 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 2

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADR DEADLINES 

C-07-00085-CW 

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 

and/or state law antitrust claims against Nvidia and AMD. Each complaint is styled as a putative 

class action. 

3. On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs in some of these other actions 

collectively filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to 

transfer and consolidate in this judicial district all existing and subsequently filed antitrust 

actions related to the claims alleged in the Complaint. 

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. Oral argument on the JPML Motion is scheduled for March 29, 2007 in 

San Antonio, Texas. 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 January 12, 

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 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines 

entered on January 5, 2007 (“January 5 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 January 5 Order would avoid the 

expenditure of unnecessary judicial resources until it is determined whether this action will 

Case 3:07-cv-00085-WHA Document 14 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 3

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADR DEADLINES 

C-07-00085-CW 

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 

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 5 Order. The affected dates 

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

selection, and discovery plan (currently March 23, 2007); (2) file joint ADR documents 

(currently March 23, 2007); (3) complete initial disclosures and file the Rule 26(f) Report and 

Case Management Statement (currently April 6, 2007); and (4) the Initial Case Management 

Conference (currently April 13, 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 – June 22, 2007; (2) the deadline to file joint ADR 

documents – June 22, 2007; (3) the deadline to complete initial disclosures and file the Rule 

26(f) Report and Case Management Statement – July 6, 2007; and (4) the Initial Case 

Management Conference – July 13, 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 3:07-cv-00085-WHA Document 14 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 4

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADR DEADLINES 

C-07-00085-CW 

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: March 8, 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: March 6, 2007 Dated: March 6, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP FURTH LEHMANN & GRANT LLP 

 

By: /s/ James Donato By: /s/ Christopher L. Lebsock 

 James Donato (146140) Christopher L. Lebsock (184546) 

Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NVIDIA CORPORATION DANIEL PERKEL 

 

 

Case 3:07-cv-00085-WHA Document 14 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 5

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADR DEADLINES 

C-07-00085-CW 

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: March 8, 2007 

 By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel 

Case 3:07-cv-00085-WHA Document 14 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 6

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADR DEADLINES 

C-07-00085-CW 

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 

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all dates set forth in the January 5, 2007 

Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference 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 June 22, 2007; (2) the deadline to file joint ADR documents will be June 

22, 2007; (3) the deadline to complete initial disclosures and file the Rule 26(f) Report and Case 

Management Statement will be July 6, 2007; and (4) 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 as modified. 

3/14/07 

Dated: __________________ 

 

 _____________________________ 

 The Honorable Claudia Wilken 

 LA\1692031.1 

Case 3:07-cv-00085-WHA Document 14 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 6