Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 07-5944 SC (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20131226535 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING OF DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. WHEREAS, on September 13, 2013, the Court entered a minute order (Dkt. No. 1931) (1) requesting that the parties in the DAP actions and IPP actions submit a new stipulated scheduling order for those cases; and (2) maintaining the trial date in the DPP actions; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order Regarding Scheduling (Dkt. No. 1991) setting
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING OF DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2013, the Court entered a minute order (Dkt. No. 1931) (1) requesting that the parties in the DAP actions and IPP actions submit a new stipulated scheduling order for those cases; and (2) maintaining the trial date in the DPP actions; and

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order Regarding Scheduling (Dkt. No. 1991) setting a revised schedule for the IPP actions and DAP actions; and

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, the Court entered an Order on Trial Schedule for the Direct Purchaser Action (Dkt. No. 2096)1 in which it (1) clarified that the deadlines in the DPP actions for expert discovery, fact discovery, dispositive motion practice and mediation were to have remained the same as those set in the Court's March 13, 2013 order (Dkt. No. 1595), and (2) modified all other deadlines in the DPP actions to conform with the Court's October 7, 2013 scheduling order for the IPP and DAP actions (Dkt. No. 1991), including setting the DPP actions for trial on March 9, 2015, the same date as the IPP and DAP actions; and

WHEREAS, the schedule set by the Court's March 13, 2013 order (Dkt. No. 1595) would have required the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to serve their merits expert reports by October 23, 2013 (which had already passed), with Defendants' expert reports due on November 22, 2013; and

WHEREAS, in light of continuing settlement negotiations, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs have not yet served their opening expert reports and require additional time to prepare those reports, while the Defendants in the DPP actions are unable to finalize their expert reports until they have received Plaintiffs' reports; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the current deadlines in the DAP actions and IPP actions for the service of expert reports and close of expert discovery only, as set in the Court's October 7, 2013 order (Dkt. No. 1991) are reasonable and should also apply to the DPP actions;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the undersigned parties in the DPP actions, as follows:

1. January 21, 2014 shall be the last day for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to serve opening expert reports on the merits, and the last day for Defendants in the DPP actions to serve opening expert reports on affirmative defenses.

2. April 22, 2014 shall be the last day for Defendants in the DPP actions to serve opposition expert reports on the merits, and the last day for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to serve opposition expert reports on affirmative defenses.

3. July 22, 2014 shall be the last day for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to serve rebuttal expert reports on the merits and the last day for the Defendants in the DPP actions to serve rebuttal expert reports on affirmative defenses.

4. The close of expert discovery in the DPP actions shall be September 5, 2014.

5. All other deadlines in the DPP actions shall remain the same as set in the Court's November 4, 2013 Order and Amended Order on Trial Schedule for Direct Purchaser Action (Dkt. Nos. 2096 & 2105).

The undersigned parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court enter this stipulation as an order.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. On the same day, the Court entered an Amended Order on Trial Schedule for Direct Purchaser Action (Dkt. No. 2105) to correct a "typographical error" in Docket No. 2096.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer