You are on page 1of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INRE ORDER VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST LITIGATION MASTER FILE NO. 96-CV-5238 (JG) This Document Relates Ts All Actions JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge: ‘Oral argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification will be held on February 4, 2000, at 11 am. Each side will be limited to one hour of argument. Defendants’ application to file a motion for summary judgment on “limited topics” prior to the time established for motions in my December 20, 1999, scheduling order is denied. Dated: January 3, 2000 Brooklyn, New York UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. INRE VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST LITIGATION ——X This Document Relates To: All Actions APPEARANCES: MELVIN A. SCHWARZ Special Counsel for Civil Enforcement US. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 328 7 St, NW, Room 300 Washington, D.C. 20530 ‘Counsel for Intervenor United States of America LLOYD CONSTANTINE Constantine & Partners 477 Madison Avenuc ‘New York, NY 10022 Lead Counse} for Plaintiffs GEORGE W. SAMPSON ‘Hagens & Berman 1301 Fifth Aveaue, Suite 2929 Seattle, Washington 98101 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs MARK A. KIRSCH Rogers & Wells LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for Defendant MasterCard International, Inc. FOR PUBLICATION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER __ MASTER FILE NO, 96-CV-5238 (IG) M. LAURENCE POPOFSKY Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe 333 Bush Street ‘San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 Counsel for Defendant Vise U.S.A., Inc PHILIP H. CURTIS Amold & Porter 399 Park Avenue ‘New York, NY 10022 Counse! for Defendant Visa U.S.A., Inc. JOHN GLEESON, United States Distriet Judge: ‘The United States, by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("tbe Government"), has moved for(i) permission to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking madification of the Caurt’s protective order; (i}) modification of that order to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to share with the Government their analyses of discovery documents possessed by both plaintiffs and the Government; and (iii) an order stating thet such sharing would not waive any applicable privilege, including work product protection. The Government's motion is supported by the plaintiffs and opposed by the defendacts. For the reasons discussed in this memorandum, the motions are granted, BACKGROUND Wel-Mart and « number of other retailers instituted this action against Visa and ‘MasterCard in October 1996 (the “Wal-Mart action” or the "Wal-Mart case”). The plaintiffs contend that they are the victims of an illegal tying arrangement, under which the defendants ‘Torce them to accept Visa Check and MasterMoncy dehit cards -- for which they must pay “supre-competitive fend] exorbitant” rates ~ as the price of accepting the “ubiquitous and 2