Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 122.3 kB
Pages: 4
Date: March 28, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 859 Words, 5,435 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35140/684.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Delaware ( 122.3 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :05-cv-00485-JJF Document 684 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE )
INTEL CORPORATION )
MICROPROCESSOR ANTITRUST ) MDL No. 1717-JJF
LITIGATION )

)
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., a )
Delaware Corporation, and AMD )
INTERNATIONAL SALES & SERVICES, )
LTD., a Delaware corporation, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 05-441-JJF
)
INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware )
Corporation, and INTEL KABUSHIKI )
KAISHA, a Japanese corporation, )
)
Defendants. )

)
PHIL PAUL, on behalf of himself and )
all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. 05-485-JJF
INTEL CORPORATION, )
) CONSOLIDATED
Defendants. )
) DM 9
ORDER
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2008, Defendants Intel Corporation and Intel Kabushiki
Kaisha ("Inte1") requested a conference to discuss the entry of a case management order
addressing the taking of depositions in the case and proposed a plan for deposition discovery for
the Special Master’s consideration;
062032;.00616/40173981v.2

Case 1:O5—cv—OO485-JJF Document 684 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2008, Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD") and
Class Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs") opposed Intel’s proposed plan for deposition discovery
in this matter and put forward a proposal of their own;
WHEREAS, the parties are unable to agree on a deposition discovery plan;
WHEREAS, the case is complex in nature and the document production has been, and is
expected to continue to be, immense;
I WHEREAS, the trial in this case is currently scheduled for April 2009;
WHEREAS, the parties participated in a teleconference with the Special Master on
March 27, 2008, to discuss deposition discovery and the form of the entry of this Order;
WHEREAS, a preliminary pretrial statement is designed to provide both the Special
Master and the parties with a tool for which to focus, frame and define the boundaries of the
deposition discovery process in this case;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2008, as follows:
1. On or before May I, 2008, Plaintiffs and Intel shall each submit to the Special Master a
preliminary pretrial statement.
2. Each preliminary pretrial statement shall be no longer than 100 pages, and no exhibits
shall be attached; however, at the election of Class Plaintiffs, the joint preliminary pretrial
statement of Plaintiffs may contain a additional 20 pages to address any issue bearing solely
upon the class litigation.
3. On or before May 12, 2008, Plaintiffs and Intel shall each submit to the Special Master a
response to the opposing party’s preliminary pretrial statement.
4. Each response shall be no longer than 40 pages, and no exhibits shall be attached;
however, if Class Plaintiffs exercise their right to include an additional 20 pages in Plaintiffs’
2
0620%.00616/40173981v.2

Case 1:O5—cv—OO485-JJF Document 684 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 3 of 4
joint preliminary pretrial statement, then Intel’s response may include an additional 10 pages to
pemiit it to address any issue bearing solely upon the class litigation raised by Class Plaintiffs.
5. Each preliminary pretrial statement and response shall be in Times New Roman, l2-point
font, and it shall be double—spaced with one inch margins.
6. This preliminary pretrial statement will not have preclusive effect, and the parties will be
free to refine or modify their theories or contentions, in any respect.
7. The preliminary pretrial statement shall address, but is not limited to, the following
subjects:
a. A statement of the elements of the party’s claims or defenses, and some reference
to the principal substantive legal authorities and/or doctrines on which the party
will rely with respect to liability.
b. A statement of the pa1ty’s main factual contentions in support of each of the
elements of its claims or defenses.
c. A statement of the categories of evidence on which the party proposes to rely,
based on its factual contentions, and to the extent practicable:
l. a list of the depositions needed to establish the facts,
including categories of deponents, identities of companies to be
deposed and the deponents, to the extent practicable;
2. the categories of documents, including the categories of
companies producing documents, identities of companies, and
for each the areas of document discovery (sales records,
purchase records, etc); and
3. an indication of the contentions that the party anticipates it
may support by expert opinion.
d. A statement of the principal factual contentions supporting or refuting the
proposition that Defendants’ alleged antitrust violations caused injuries to
Plaintiffs.
e. A statement of the forms of relief sought, and in the case injunctive relief is
sought, to the extent possible, the nature of the injunctive relief proposed.
3
062038.006l6/40l7398lv.2

Case 1 :05-cv-00485-JJF Document 684 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 4 of 4
8. On or before May 30, 2008, the Special Master will provide the parties with a written
document reflecting his preliminary response to the parties’ submissions.
9. On June 5, 2008, a hearing on the pa1ties’ submissions will occur in the J. Caleb Boggs
Federal Court Building, Court Room 4B at 1:00 p.m..
SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2008.

Vin t J. Poppiti
(DSBA 0. 614)
Special Master
4
062038.00616/40173981v.2