Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Re: Proof of Service of Process and Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss by Doe I, Doe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, Liu Guifu, Ivy He, Charles Lee, Roe VII, Roe VIII. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Shah, Rajika) (Filed on 6/17/2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 KATHRYN LEE BOYD, ESQ. (SBN 189496) lboyd@srbr-law.com RAJIKA L. SHAH, ESQ. (SBN 232994) rshah@srbr-law.com SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 360 Los Angeles, California 90048 Phone: (323) 302-9488 Fax: (323) 931-4990 TERRI MARSH, ESQ. (pro hac vice) terri.marsh@hrlf.net BRIAN PIERCE, ESQ. (pro hac vice) bjpierce@gmail.com HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION 1615 L Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 369-4977 Fax: (202) 355-6701 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 21 22 23 24 vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., John CHAMBERS, Thomas LAM, Owen CHAN, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF JOINT STIPULATION RE: PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS Action Filed: May 19, 2011 Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor Defendants. 25 26 27 28 SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90048 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF STIPULATION 1 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE 3 III, DOE IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu (“Plaintiffs”) 4 and Defendants CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (“Cisco”), John CHAMBERS (“Chambers”), Thomas 5 LAM (“Lam”), and Owen CHAN (“Chan”) (collectively, the “Parties”), as follows: 6 WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs received an email from William Friedman, Director of 7 Legal Services at Cisco (“Mr. Friedman”), on May 20, 2011, informing counsel for Plaintiffs 8 that he was in receipt of the Complaint filed in the above-referenced case on May 19, 2011, and 9 that Cisco would accept service of process on behalf of both Chambers and Cisco via PDF/email 10 11 sent to him at email address bilfried@cisco.com; WHEREAS, Rajika Shah (“Ms. Shah”), associate counsel for Plaintiffs, responded to Mr. 12 Friedman’s email and stated that she would forward service copies of the Summons and 13 Complaint and other initiating documents to Mr. Friedman on behalf of both Cisco and 14 Chambers as PDF documents via email to email address bilfried@cisco.com; 15 WHEREAS, Ms. Shah emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address 16 bilfried@cisco.com of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents consisting of 17 the following in PDF format on May 27, 2011: 18  Complaint 19  Summons on Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. 20  Summons on Defendant John Chambers 21  Certification of Interested Parties 22  Civil Case Cover Sheet 23  San Jose Division Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases 24  N.D.Cal. Standing Order Regarding Contents of Joint Case Management Statement 25 26  Order Reassigning the case to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel for all proceedings 27  Notice of Electronic Filing assigning the case to Magistrate Judge; 28 WHEREAS, Ms. Shah also emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address -1- SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90048 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF 1 bilfried@cisco.com of Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed anonymously and through appointed next 2 friends and the pro hac vice applications of Terri Marsh and Brian Pierce consisting of the 3 following in PDF format on May 27, 2011: 4  Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Proceed Anonymously 5  [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Anonymously 6  Declaration of Terri Marsh in support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously 7  Exhibit A to Declaration of Terri Marsh 8  Exhibit B to Declaration of Terri Marsh 9  Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next Friend 10 11  Next Friend 12 13  Declaration of Terri Marsh in support of Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next Friend 14 15 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Through Appointed  Declaration of Roe III in support of Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next Friend 16 17  Pro hac vice application of Terri Marsh 18  [Proposed] Order Granting Terri Marsh pro hac vice application 19  Pro hac vice application of Brian Pierce 20  [Proposed] Order Granting Brian Pierce pro hac vice application 21 WHEREAS, Ms. Shah also emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address 22 bilfried@cisco.com of all other documents on the docket in the above-referenced case as of May 23 27, 2011, consisting of the following in PDF format, on May 27, 2011: 24  Summons on Defendant Owen Chan 25  Summons on Defendant Thomas Lam 26  Order Setting Initial CMC with Magistrate Judge Grewal 27  Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Grewal in civil matters 28  Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Grewal re: Settlement Conference Procedures -2- SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90048 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF 1  Plaintiffs’ Declination to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge Grewal 2  Notice of Impending Reassignment of District Judge; 3 WHEREAS, Mr. Friedman acknowledged in a telephone conversation with Ms. Shah on 4 June 3, 2011, that he had received service of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating 5 documents as set forth above and that service on Defendants Cisco and Chambers was valid; WHEREAS, Mr. Friedman also acknowledged in the June 3 telephone conversation with 6 7 Ms. Shah that Cisco and Chambers had hired outside counsel and would be represented going 8 forward by Kathleen Sullivan of the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn 9 Emanuel”); WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, Ms. Shah spoke with Isaac Nesser (“Mr. Nesser”), 10 11 associate counsel at Quinn Emanuel, and Mr. Nesser confirmed that Cisco and Chambers had 12 been validly served with the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth 13 above; 14 WHEREAS, on June 16, 2011, Ms. Shah spoke again with Mr. Nesser, who confirmed 15 that Quinn Emanuel had been authorized to accept service on Lam and Chan of the Summons 16 and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth above effective as of May 27, 2011; 17 WHEREAS Cisco, Chambers, Lam, and Chan (collectively, “Defendants”) do each 18 hereby acknowledge that service of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents 19 as set forth above is valid and effective as to each of them as of May 27, 2011, and hereby waive 20 any and all defense(s) and objections to service of process; 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREAS Defendants have expressed their intent to file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint; NOW THEREFOR IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties, through counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants, that: 1. Subject to and in accordance with the recitations set forth above, service of the 26 Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth above is valid and effective 27 as to Defendants as of May 27, 2011. 28 SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90048 2. Defendants hereby waive any and all defense(s) and objections to service of -3JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF 1 process in the above-referenced action. 3. 3 4 This Stipulation will constitute a valid Proof of Service upon filing with the 4. 2 The Parties hereby stipulate to the following briefing schedule on Defendants’ Court. 5 forthcoming Motion to Dismiss: 6 a. 7 due no later than August 4, 2011; 8 b. 9 10 11 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and any and all supporting documents are Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and any and all supporting documents are due no later than October 12, 2011; and c. Defendants’ Reply and any and all supporting documents are due no later than November 14, 2011. 12 13 14 15 DATED: June 17, 2011 SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP By: 16 /s/Rajika L. Shah Rajika L. Shah, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 18 19 20 21 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By: /s/Kathleen Sullivan Kathleen Sullivan, Esq. 22 23 24 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Tel: 212.849.7000 Fax: 212.849.7100 25 26 Attorneys for Defendants 27 28 SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90048 -4JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF