Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al

Filing 110

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/10/2017 ORDERING The Court hereby APPROVES the parties' stipulation staying discovery as its order. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
MICHAEL J. MCGAUGHEY (198617)
390 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Special Situations
Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations
Cayman Fund, L.P. and additional named
Plaintiff David M. Fineman

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P.,
SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P.
and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

13

Case No. 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-KJN
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Plaintiffs,
14
v.

STIPULATION AND ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY

15
16
17
18
19

MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC.,
PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD,
DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI,
ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA
CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE
HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN,
RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY,
SEAN SCHICKENDANZ, and ERNST &
YOUNG LLP,

20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

1
2
3

Lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund,
L.P. (“Lead Plaintiffs”), additional named plaintiff David M. Fineman (“Fineman” and, together
with Lead Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Ernst & Young LLP (“EY” or “Defendant” and,

4

together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby recite and

5

stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, the following as concerns staying all discovery and

6

other proceedings in the action pending the outcome of anticipated discussions between and

7

among the parties.
RECITALS

8
9

WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint on November 3, 2014

10

[Docket No. 1], against Defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (“MBII” or the “Company”)

11

and certain of MBII’s directors and officers (collectively, the “MBII Defendants”);

12
13
14
15
16

WHEREAS, by order dated February 13, 2015 [Docket No. 18], the Court consolidated
related actions, designating the instant action as the Master File, administratively closed the
related actions, and appointed Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations
Cayman Fund, L.P. as Lead Plaintiffs and Lowenstein Sandler LLP as Lead Counsel;
WHEREAS, on that same day the Court issued its Order Requiring Joint Status Report,
which provides that the parties to this action must prepare and submit to the Court a joint status

17
report that includes, inter alia, a discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and responses to
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

certain other discovery-related matters;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on or about
September 1, 2015 [Docket No. 35], which named EY as an additional Defendant;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
or about January 11, 2016 [Docket No. 44];
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs and the MBII Defendants reached an agreement
in principle to settle the claims against the MBII Defendants;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on June
1, 2016 [Docket No. 76];
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2016, EY moved to dismiss the claims against it set forth in the
TAC [Docket No. 84];
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

1
2
3
4

WHEREAS, the Court approved the settlement between Plaintiffs and the MBII
Defendants in an Order and Final Judgment as to Settling Parties, dated September 27, 2016
[Docket No. 104], dismissing all claims against the MBII Defendants, which judgment is now
final;

5

WHEREAS, EY is the only Defendant remaining in the action;

6

WHEREAS, by Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2017 [Docket No. 106], the

7

Court denied EY’s motion to dismiss;

8

WHEREAS, EY filed its Answer to the TAC on April 25, 2017;

9

WHEREAS, by virtue of a series of so ordered Stipulations and the automatic stay of

10

discovery imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), all

11

discovery in this action, including the obligation to file a Rule 26(f) discovery plan and the

12

Parties’ responses to the discovery-related topics in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report, has

13
14
15
16

been stayed since the inception of the action;
WHEREAS, the Parties intend to engage in a conference or series of conferences to
discuss the factual underpinnings of this case and to explore the possibility of a resolution of the
claims against EY in this action;
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to avoid the burden and expense of discovery while they

17
engage in such a conference or conferences; and
18
19

WHEREAS, the statements made in this Stipulation are for the purposes of this
Stipulation alone and are not otherwise admissible for any other purpose.

20
21
22
23

STIPULATION
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties, through
their respective counsel of record, as follows:
1.

To allow the Parties to explore a potential resolution of this action before

24

undertaking the burden and expense of discovery, all discovery in this action, including but not

25

limited to the filing of a Rule 26(f) discovery plan and/or responding to the discovery-related

26

topics in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report, is stayed for the ninety (90) days following

27

adoption of this Stipulation by the Court.

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

1
2
3
4
5

2.

Following this ninety (90) day stay, if the action has not been resolved the parties

shall meet and confer concerning discovery within ten (10) days after the expiration of the ninety
(90) day stay and within twenty (20) days after that submit a Rule 26(f) discovery plan to the
Court and/or respond to the discovery-related topics in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report.
3.

In the event the Court declines to approve this stipulation, the Parties shall have

6

thirty (30) days from said denial to submit a Rule 26(f) discovery plan to the Court and/or

7

respond to the discovery-related topics in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report.

8
9
10

Dated: May 4, 2017

11

By: /s/ Michael J. McGaughey (as authorized on 5/4/17)
Michael J. McGaughey
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
390 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III
QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and
additional named Plaintiff David M. Fineman

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP

Dated: May 4, 2017

MAYER BROWN LLP
By: /s/ Elizabeth Mann
Elizabeth Mann
350 South Grand Avenue
25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

24
25

Counsel for Defendant Ernst & Young LLP

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

1
2

ORDER
The Court hereby approves the parties’ above stipulation as its order.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: May 10, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY
723922464