Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07710/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07710-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ATI Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Defendant
Vincent Andella
Plaintiff
Nvidia Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 1

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR 

DEADLINES C-06-07710 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 

 charles.samel@lw.com 

 

 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI Technologies, Inc. and 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VINCENT ANDELLA, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and ADVANCED 

MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Defendants.

Case No. C-06-07710 WHA 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Vincent Andella (“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 15, 2006, 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 30 other complaints have been 

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

Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 2

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE INITIAL 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR 

DEADLINES C-06-07710 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 

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 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 March 29, 2007 hearing date before the JPML, the dates set 

forth in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines entered on 

December 15, 2006 (“December 15 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 15 Order would avoid the 

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

Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 2 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 3

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE INITIAL 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR 

DEADLINES C-06-07710 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 

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 15 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 1, 2007); (2) file joint ADR documents 

(currently March 1, 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 22, 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-07710-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 3 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 4

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE INITIAL 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR 

DEADLINES C-06-07710 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 20, 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 20, 2007 Dated: February 20, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP SCHUBERT & REED LLP 

 

By: /s/ James Donato By: /s/ Aaron H. Darsky 

 James Donato (146140) Aaron H. Darsky (212229) 

Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NVIDIA CORPORATION VINCENT ANDELLA 

 

 

Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 4 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 4 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 5

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE INITIAL 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR 

DEADLINES C-06-07710 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 20, 2007 

 By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel 

Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 5 of 6
 Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 5 of 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 6

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE INITIAL 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR 

DEADLINES C-06-07710 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 15, 

2006 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines 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 William H. Alsup 

 LA\1688308.1 

Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 6 of 6

February 2, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:06-cv-07710-WHA Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 6 of 6