`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`RELATED CASE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related or a
`Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been
`filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned
`to case:
`
`
`Related Not Related
`JD
`
`
`14-cv-03264-JD
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation
`
`I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case
`assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not
`related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case
`for a related case determination.
`
`
`Title
`Case
`18-cv-02904-MMC Plexus Corp v. Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. et al.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the
`initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management
`conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the
`dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly.
`Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re-
`noticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local
`Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to
`govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned
`judge.
`
`
`The newly-related case, Plexus Corp. v. Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 18-cv-
`2904, will also be made a part of In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation (No. III), Case No. 17-md-
`2801.
`
`
`Dated: July 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`James Donato
` United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
