Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

In re High-Tech Emple. Antitrust Litig.

In re High-Tech Emple. Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division

October 24, 2013, Decided; October 24, 2013, Filed

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK

Opinion

 [*1171]  ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, and Daniel Stover (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, allege antitrust claims against their former employers, Adobe Systems Inc. ("Adobe"), Apple Inc. ("Apple"), Google Inc. ("Google"), Intel Corp. ("Intel"), Intuit Inc. ("Intuit"), Lucasfilm Ltd. ("Lucasfilm"), and Pixar (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to suppress, and actually did suppress, employee compensation to artificially low levels by agreeing not to solicit each other's employees in violation  [**5] of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15.

On April 5, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification with leave to amend. See Apr. 5 Class Cert. Order, ECF No. 382. Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class Certification. See Pls.' Suppl. Mot. Class. Cert. ("Suppl. Class Cert. Mot."), ECF No. 418. Defendants filed an opposition, see Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Suppl. Mot. Class Cert. ("Suppl. Opp'n"), ECF No. 439, and Plaintiffs filed a reply, Pls.' Reply Supp. Suppl. Mot. Class. Cert. ("Suppl. Reply"), ECF No. 455. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class Certification on August 8, 2013. See ECF No. 495. Having considered the parties' submissions, arguments, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class Certification and CERTIFIES Plaintiffs' proposed class of technical employees ("Technical Class").

I. BACKGROUND

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

985 F. Supp. 2d 1167 *; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153752 **; 86 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1459; 2013-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,565; 2013 WL 5770992

IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS.

Subsequent History: Class certification granted by In re High-Tech Emple. Antitrust Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180530 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2013)

Certificate of appealability denied, Motion granted by Siddharth Hariharan v. Adobe Sys. (In re High-Tech Emple. Antitrust Litig.), 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 25063 (9th Cir. Cal., Jan. 14, 2014)

Prior History: In re High-Tech Emple. Antitrust Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143506 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2013)

CORE TERMS

employees, Defendants', Plaintiffs', salary, recruiting, anti-solicitation, predominate, class certification, cold, variable, job title, documentary evidence, damages, class member, regression, email, classwide, analyses, Vice, statistical, antitrust, Reply, common question, correlation, suppressed, effects, structures, questions, salary range, Senior