Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

. · Case 1:05-cv-00473-JJF Document 10 Filed 11/O9/2005 Page 1 of 3
· A: M TRUECOPY JUDICIAL PANEL ON
` Mutrtotsrnlcr LlTlGATlOl\'
- 8 e ~11‘ EAS 12 Fon PUBLICA rrorv NOV · it 2005
al ‘ I Fitao
TNO- 1717 crank s osrica
» Lr'ft.t tfttfi - ’ . .l3L _n | - »_. 5 . NEL ON M UL TIDIS TRICT L1 TI GA T I ON
IN RE INTEL CORP. MICROPROCESS OR AN TI TR UST LI TI GA TION
BEFORE WM TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN E KEENAM D.
LOWELL JENSEM JC FREDERICK MOTZ ROBERT L. MILLER, JR.,
KA THR YN H VRA TIL AND DA VID R. HANSEN, J UDGES OF THE
PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation currently consists of fourteen actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending in two districts as follows: ten actions in the Northem District of Califomia and four actions
in the District of Delaware.‘ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in one Northem District of
California action originally moved for centralization of this docket in their California district, but
they now favor selection of the District of Delaware as transferee forum. Plaintiff in one of the
Delaware actions, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), has stated that it does not object to
centralization in the District of Delaware, so long as the Panel orders that AMD’s action be allowed
to proceed on a separate track within the Section 1407 proceedings. All other responding parties,
(i.e, plaintiffs in eight ofthe nine remaining California actions, the plaintiffs in the three remaining
Delaware actions, common defendant Intel Corp., and plaintiffs in various District of Delaware and
Northern and Southem District of Califomia potential tag-along actions) support centralization
without qualification. With but one exception, all of these additional respondents also support
designation of the District of Delaware as transferee forum. The lone dissenter on this point is the
plaintiff in a Southern District ofCalifomia potential tag—along action, who favors centralization in
his California district.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in l
this litigation involve common questions of fact, and t.hat centralization under Section 1407 in the
District of Delaware will serve the convenience ofthe parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct ofthe litigation. All actions involve allegations that common defendant Intel Corp. ,;
monopolized and unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the market for the microprocessing chips that j.
serve as the "brains" of most modem computers. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in
order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect -
'The Panel has been notified of additional related actions recently tiled in the Northern and Southem
Districts of California, the District of Delaware, the Southem District of Florida, and the Eastern and 5,
Westem Districts of Tennessee. In light ofthe Panel's disposition of this docket, these actions will be treated i
as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001). ';
it

, - Case 1:05-cv-00473-JJF Document 10 Filed 11/O9/2005 Page 2 of 3
- 2 -
to class certification matters), and conserve the resources ofthe parties, their counsel and the j udiciary.
Transfer under Section 1407 will have the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before
a single judge who can fonnulate a pretrial program that: i) allows discovery with respect to any non-
common issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith
Patent Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (J,P.M.L. 1976); and ii) ensures that pretrial proceedings
will be conducted in a manner leading to a just and expeditious resolution of the actions to the
benefit of not just some but all of the litigation’s parties. We decline to grant AMD’s request to
issue specific instructions that could limit the discretion of the transferee court to structure this
litigation as it sees fit. As Section 1407 proceedings evolve in the transferee district, AMD may wish
to renew its argument that the nature of its claims andfor its status as a litigant would warrant
separate tracking for its action within the centralized MDL-1717 proceedings. That argument is one
to be addressed to the transferee court, however, and not to the Panel.
In concluding that the District of Delaware is an appropriate forum for this docket, we
observe that i) the district is an accessible location that is geographically convenient for many of this
docket’s litigants and counsel; ii) the district is well equipped with the resources that this complex
antitrust docket is likely to require; and iii) the district is the near unanimous choice of all responding
parties.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of Delaware are transferred to that district and, with the
consent of that coun, assi gned to the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
A/`2-9·-~c¢Lg€*in*i.q,y•,
Wm. Terrell Hodges
Chairman j
I
Il

. ~ Case 1:05-cv-00473-JJF Document 10 Filed 11/09/2005 Page 3 of 3
SCHEDULE A
MDL-1717 -— In re Intel Cog;. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation
Northern District of California
David E. Lipton, et al. v. Intel Corp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2669
Maria I Proltias v. Intel Corp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2699
Ronald Konieczka v. Intel Corp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2700
Patricia M Niehaus v. Intel Carp., C.A. No. 3:05-2720
Stevej Hamilton v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 3:05-2721
Michael Branch, etal. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 3:05-2743
Susan Baxley v. Intel Corp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2758
Huston Frazier, et al. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 3:05-2813
Dwight E. Dickerson v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 3:05-2818
The Harman Press v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 3:05-2823
District of Delaware
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. Intel Corp., et al., C.A. N0. 1:05-441
Jim Kidwell, et al. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 1:05-470
Robertl Rainwater, et al. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 1:05-473
Matthew Kravitz, etal. v. Intel Corp., C.A. N0. 1:05-476
` F
I