Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 1917 (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141014952 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ACTIONS ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS TO COMPEL SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. This Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending the Deadline to File Motions to Compel between Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America ("PNA"), and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Panasonic"), on the one hand, and plaintiffs Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., Bestbuy.co
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ACTIONS ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

This Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending the Deadline to File Motions to Compel between Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America ("PNA"), and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Panasonic"), on the one hand, and plaintiffs Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., Bestbuy.com, L.L.C., and Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC ("Best Buy") and Direct Action Plaintiffs and the Indirect Purchaser Class Plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on the other hand, is made with respect to the following facts and recitals:

WHEREAS, on March 21, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order setting the close of fact discovery for September 5, 2014. See Dkt. No. 2459;

WHEREAS, the deadline to file any motion to compel after the discover cut-off is September 12, 2014 (L.R. 37-3);

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2014, defendant PNA served its First Set of Requests for Admission to Best Buy;

WHEREAS, on September 5, 2014, Best Buy served its Responses to PNA's First Set of Requests for Admission to Best Buy and stated objections on various grounds;

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2014, counsel for Best Buy and PNA held a telephonic meet and confer to discuss deficiencies in Best Buy responses identified by PNA and have a bona fide intent to continue doing so;

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2014, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Admission on Panasonic;

WHEREAS, on September 5, 2014, Panasonic served its Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission and stated objections on various grounds;

WHEREAS, on September 10-11, 2014, counsel for the undersigned parties held telephonic meet and confers to discuss deficiencies in Panasonic's responses identified by Plaintiffs and have a bona fide intent to continue doing so;

WHEREAS, the undersigned parties have conferred by and through their counsel and, subject to the Court's approval, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Subject to the parties' September 11, 2014 meet and confer discussion, PNA will provide Best Buy with revised language for certain requests in PNA's First Set of Requests for Admission to Best Buy by September 12, 2014. 2. Subject to the parties' September 11, 2014 meet and confer discussion, Best Buy will provide PNA with revised responses to certain requests in PNA's First Set of Requests for Admission to Best Buy by September 19, 2014. 3. The undersigned parties agree to extend the deadline for PNA to file a motion to compel relating to PNA's First Set of Requests for Admission to Best Buy, to the extent one is deemed necessary by PNA, to September 26, 2014. 4. Subject to the parties' September 11, 2014 meet and confer discussion, with respect to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission to Panasonic, Plaintiffs will provide Panasonic with a revised list of documents for discussion by September 18, 2014. 5. Subject to the parties' meet and confer discussion, Panasonic will review the revised list for possible inclusion in a declaration or stipulation related to their authenticity and business record status by October 9, 2014. 6. The undersigned parties agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel relating to the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission to Panasonic, to the extent one is deemed necessary by Plaintiffs, to October 16, 2014.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

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