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

Filing 40

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 42 . *** STIPULATION and proposed Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Kramer, Karin) (Filed on 7/22/2011) Modified on 7/22/2011 (feriab, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Kathleen M. Sullivan (CA Bar No. 242261)  kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor  Redwood City, California 94065 (650) 801-5000  Telephone: Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Faith E. Gay (pro hac vice)  faithgay@quinnemanuel.com Isaac Nesser (pro hac vice)  isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com  51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010  Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100  Attorneys for Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc.,  John Chambers, Thomas Lam, and Owen Chan    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  SAN JOSE DIVISION   Doe I, Doe II, Ivy He, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, ROE VII, Charles Lee, Roe VIII, Liu  Guifu, and those individuals similarly situated,   Plaintiffs, Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXCEED APPLICABLE PAGE LIMIT v.  Cisco Systems, Inc., John Chambers, Thomas  Lam, Owen Chan, and Does 1-100,  Defendants.      Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit 1 WHEREAS, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is scheduled to be filed on 2 August 4, 2011; 3 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint is 52 pages long and asserts fourteen 4 causes of action; 5 WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that the applicable 25-page limit for 6 briefs in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ forthcoming Motion to Dismiss the 7 Complaint is insufficient to address the claims and issues raised in the Complaint; and 8 WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants further agree that the applicable 15-page limit 9 for Defendants’ reply brief in support of their forthcoming Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is 10 insufficient to address the claims and issues raised in the Complaint; and 11 WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants further agree that extending the page limit will 12 allow the parties to address adequately each claim and issue, and assist the Court in efficiently and 13 effectively resolving Defendants’ forthcoming Motion to Dismiss the Complaint; 14 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows: 15 1. Defendants’ opening brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and 16 Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition that Motion, may each be a maximum of 50 pages of text, excluding 17 tables of contents, tables of authorities, and supporting documents. 18 2. Defendants’ reply brief in further support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 19 may be a maximum of 20 pages of text, excluding tables of contents, tables of authorities, and 20 supporting documents. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit 1 2 DATED: July 22, 2011 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 3 By /s/ Kathleen M. Sullivan Kathleen M. Sullivan kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com Faith E. Gay faithgay@quinnemanuel.com Isaac Nesser isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com 4 5 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 9 SCHWARCZ RIMBERG BOYD & RADER, LLP 10 By /s/ K. Kee Boyd K. Kee Boyd* lboyd@srbr-law.com 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 14 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION 15 By /s/ Terri M. Marsh Terri M. Marsh* terri.marsh@hrlf.net 16 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18 19 20 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: , 2011 23 24 Hon. Jeremy Fogel 25 26 27 * 28 I have obtained signatory's consent to file this stipulation and proposed order. Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit