Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 1917. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180503e90 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 01, 2018
Latest Update: May 01, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND HEARING DATES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (together, "Irico"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on April 25, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel Irico to respond to five discovery requests filed in 2010 and 2011 and directed
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND HEARING DATES

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (together, "Irico"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel Irico to respond to five discovery requests filed in 2010 and 2011 and directed the parties "to submit a jointly proposed schedule . . . for the completion of jurisdictional discovery and briefing" on a motion by Irico to resolve jurisdictional issues (Dkt. 5277);

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding a proposed schedule for jurisdictional discovery, briefing, and hearing for such a motion by Irico;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for Irico and Plaintiffs, that:

Irico's opening motion regarding jurisdictional issues shall be due on or before July 18, 2018;

Jurisdictional discovery shall close on October 3, 2018; Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion shall be due on or before October 15, 2018; Irico's reply in support of its motion shall be due on or before November 15, 2018; and

The hearing on the motion shall be set for December 6, 2018 at 2 pm, or at some other date and time convenient for the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

I, Stuart C. Plunkett, hereby attest, pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of the Northern District of California, that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

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