In re INTEL CORP. MICROPROCESSOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Service, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation and Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, Defendants. Phil Paul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation, Defendant MDL Docket No. 05–1717–JJF. Civil Action Nos. 05–441–JJF, 05–485–JJF. United States District Court, D. Delaware July 31, 2009 Counsel Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., by: Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Chad M. Shandler, Steven J. Fineman, Wilmington, DE, for Advance Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Service, Ltd. Prickett Jones & Elliott, P.A., by: James L. Holzman, J. Clayton Athey, Wilmington, DE, Interim Liaison Counsel and Attorneys for Phil Paul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, by: Richard L. Horwitz, W. Harding Drane, Jr., Wilmington, DE, for Intel Corporation and Intel Kabushiki Kaisha. Farnan, Jr., Joseph J., United States District Judge ORDER *1 WHEREAS, on July 31, 2009, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation regarding AMD's motion to compel Intel's Response to AMD's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice and Document Requests (D.I. 1684 in 05–485; D.I. 1662 in 05–441; D.I.2038 in MDL No. 05–1717); WHEREAS, on August 5, 2009, the Special Master issued an Amendment to the July 31, 2009 Report and Recommendation (D.I. 1691 in 05–485; D.I. 1669 in 05–441; D.I.2045 in MDL No. 05–1717); WHEREAS, on August 10, 2009, the Special Master issued a Second Partial Amendment to the July 31, 2009 Report and Recommendation (D.I. 1694 in 05–485; D.I. 1675 in 05–441; D.I.2051 in MDL 05–1717); WHEREAS, the objection period to the aforementioned Reports and Recommendations have passed, and to date, no objections have been filed; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Special Master's Reports and Recommendations (D.I. 1684, 1691, 1694 in Civ. Act. No. 05–485; D.I. 1662, 1669, 1675 in Civ. Act. No. 05–441; D.I.2038, 2045, 2051 in MDL No. 05–1717) are ADOPTED. ORDER VINCENT J. POPPITI, Special Master. WHEREAS, the matter is presently before the Special Master on Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Service, LTD's (“AMD”) Motion to Compel Defendants Intel Corporation and Intel Kabushiki Kaisha (“Intel”) regarding Rule 30(b)(6) and Document Requests (“Motion to Compel”) (Docket No. 1554) related to Intel's evidence preservation and completeness of document production. A copy of AMD's Notice of Taking Deposition of Intel Corporation And Intel Kabusidki Kaisha Concerning Evidence Preservation And Completeness of Document Production, and Request For Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit A; WHEREAS, Intel opposes the Motion on the grounds that [D.I. 1605](i) the discovery is time-barred pursuant to the June 20, 2007 Stipulation and Order Bifurcating Discovery into Intel's Preservation Issues (“Bifurcation Order”) [D.I. 396]; (ii) the discovery sought is duplicative of prior discovery which AMD has or has had ample opportunity to obtain; and (iii) the Motion to Compel is not ripe for consideration; WHEREAS, the Special Master held a telephonic hearing in this matter on July 20, 2009 (the “hearing”) during which the Special Master made certain conclusions; WHEREAS, for the sake of convenience and clarity any conclusions reached by the Special Master both during and subsequent to the hearing will herein read “concludes”; WHEREAS, the Special Master consulted with Eric Friedberg and his colleagues at Stroz Friedberg LLC who also participated in the hearing; WHEREAS, the Special Master noted that the Bifurcation Order permitted discovery to be conducted by AMD concerning Intel's remediation plan itself and which could also include “inquiring into the nature and extent of Intel's loss of data, and the potential consequences of those losses with respect to Intel's ability to remediate the same, to be concluded by August 31, 2007; *2 WHEREAS, the Special Master also noted the Bifurcation Order also permitted discovery concerning causation/culpability related issues to be conducted expeditiously commencing no later than October 1, 2007 without setting an end date; WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that causation/culpability discovery is not time-barred since the Bifurcation Order does not contain an end date and the term “expeditiously” relates to the commencement of discovery; WHEREAS, Eric Friedberg and his colleagues at Stroz Friedberg LLC advised and the Special Master concludes, that discovery conducted on remediation and causation/culpability, necessarily involved the same opportunity to conduct what would be considered Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) discovery consistent with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware Default Standards for Discovery of Electronic Documents (“E–Discovery”); WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that an exhaustive examination of all prior deposition transcripts and document production with an eye toward determining whether AMD had a complete and fullsome opportunity to ask questions now covered by the deposition topics at issue would neither be plausible or practical and burdensome; WHEREAS, at the same time the Special Master further concludes that some opportunity to conduct Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) discovery on some of the notice topics is appropriate and ripe, although repetitive and duplicative discovery and discovery of matters that are closed pursuant to the Bifurcation Order is not appropriate; WHEREAS, the Special Master pursuant to the agreement of the parties, concludes that Topics 7 and 9 are appropriate and the 30(b) (6) depositions on these two topics will be conducted in seven (7) hours; WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that Topics 5, 6, and 8 have been addressed in prior deposition notices and no additional deposition time should be permitted; WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that Topics 1 and 2 have not been covered by prior deposition notices; WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that Topics 4 and 10 address topics for which new information has been discovered. Topic 4 relates to information newly disclosed by Intel regarding problems it had with extracting data from the EMC Archive and Topic 10 relates to information newly supplied by Intel through its revised custodian interview summaries. WHEREAS, with respect to AMD's Request for Production the Special Master is mindful of Intel's assertion that if it possessed the documents it would have produced them pursuant to prior requests; WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that if Intel has produced responsive documents, a certification of that production is appropriate; WHEREAS, the Special Master concludes that if Intel cannot certify that all responsive documents have been produced, Intel should provide responses to the requests for production; NOW, THEREFORE, AND FOR REASONS ALSO STATED ON THE RECORD IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, AS FOLLOWS: *3 1. AMD's request for Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) depositions is HEREBY GRANTED as set forth below and DENIED in all other respects: a. Topics No. 1 and 2–1 hour; b. Topics 3–2 hours; c. Topic 4–1 hour; d. Topics 7 and 9–7 hours; e. Topic 10–2 hours. 2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Intel shall either (i) certify that it has produced all of the documents responsive to AMD's Request for Production or (ii) produce the responsive documents on a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall advise the Special Master of the agreed upon date not later than August 7, 2009. 4. Not later than close of business on August 7, 2009, the parties shall recommend to the Special Master an end date for causation / culpability discovery. THE SPECIAL MASTER'S OPINION AND ORDER WILL BECOME A FINAL ORDER OF THE COURT UNLESS OBJECTION IS TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANTICIPATED ORDER OF THE COURT WHICH SHORTENS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AN APPLICATION MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f)(2). SO ORDERED, this 31th day of July, 2009. ORDER MODIFYING JULY 31, 2009 ORDER ON AMD'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DM 35) WHEREAS, on July 31, 2009, Special Master Vincent J. Poppiti (the “Special Master”) issued an order granting in part and denying in part AMD's motion to compel Intel's response to AMD's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice and Document Requests (“July 31, 2009 Order”) (C.A. No. 05–485, D.I. 1684; C.A. No. 05–441, D.I. 1662; MDL No. 05–1717, D.I.2038); WHEREAS, the July 31, 2009 Order requires Intel to prepare a 30(b)(6) witness to testify at deposition for a total of 13 hours, and allocates one hour to Topics No. 1 and 2, two hours to Topic 3, one hour to Topic 4, seven hours to Topics 7 and 9, and two hours to Topic 10, respectively; WHEREAS, AMD and Intel have met and conferred regarding AMD's request that the Court increase the time allotted to Topic Nos. 1 and 2 to three hours (from the current allotment of one hour), and reduce the time on Topic Nos. 7 and 9 to five hours (from the current allotment of seven hours), leaving all other time allotments ordered by the Court unchanged, and Intel has agreed to this reallocation of deposition time; WHEREAS, AMD hereby requests that the Special Master reallocate the deposition time previously granted as specified above; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. AMD's request for a reallocation of deposition time is HEREBY GRANTED as set forth below: a. Topics No. 1 and 2–three hours (previously 1 hour); b. Topics 7 and 9–five hours (previously 7 hours); 2. Except for the modification described in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) above, the July 31, 2009 Order is unchanged and remains the Order of the Court. SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2009. SECOND PARTIAL AMENDING ORDER MODIFYING JULY 31, 2009 ORDER ON AMD'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DM 35) WHEREAS, on July 31, 2009, Special Master Vincent J. Poppiti (the “Special Master”) issued an Order regarding AMD's motion to compel Intel's response to AMD's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice and Document Requests (“July 31, 2009 Order”) (Docket No. 1554); *4 WHEREAS, paragraph two (2) of the July 31, 2009 Order requires Intel, within seven (7) days of the date of the Order, to either (i) certify that it has produced all of the documents responsive to AMD's Request for Production or (ii) produce the responsive documents on a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties; WHEREAS, paragraph two (2) of the July 31, 2009 Order requires the parties to advise the Court of the agreed upon date for Intel's document production not later than August 7, 2009; WHEREAS, paragraph four (4) of the July 31, 2009 Order requires the parties to recommend not later than August 7, 2009 an end date for causation/culpability discovery; WHEREAS, the Special Master held a teleconference related to these issues on August 6, 2009 during which the parties reached agreement on certain extensions related to these matters; WHEREAS, Intel has requested, and AMD does not oppose, that Intel's time to comply with paragraph two (2) of the July 31, 2009 Order shall be extended up to and including August 17, 2009; WHEREAS, the parties continue to meet and confer regarding an end date for causation/culpability discovery and have agreed to extend the deadline for submitting their joint or separate positions on this issue until August 17, 2009; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The request for modification is HEREBY GRANTED as set forth below: a. The time for Intel to comply with paragraph two (2) of the Order is extended until August 17, 2009; b. The time for the parties to advise the Court of the agreed upon date for Intel's document production, if any, is extended until August 17, 2009; c. The parties shall advise the Court of their joint or separate positions regarding an end date for causation/culpability discovery on or before August 17, 2009. 2. Except for the modifications described in paragraphs one (1) above, the July 31, 2009 Order is unchanged and remains an Order of the Court. SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2009.