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

Filing 112

STIPULATION and ORDER Continuing Discovery Stay signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 8/30/17. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MAYER BROWN LLP
Elizabeth Mann (SBN 106524)
[e-mail]
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MAYER BROWN LLP
Stanley J. Parzen (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

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.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND ORDER
CONTINUING DISCOVERY STAY
Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

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 SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG
LLP,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY STAY,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2571-MCE-KJN

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

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,
together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby recite and
stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, the following as concerns a continuation of the stay
on all discovery and other proceedings in the action pending the outcome of continuing
discussions between and among the parties.

8
9
10
11
12
13

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint on November 3, 2014
[Docket No. 1], against Defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (“MBII” or the “Company”)
and certain of MBII’s directors and officers (collectively, the “MBII Defendants”);
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

14

related actions, and appointed Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman

15

Fund, L.P. as Lead Plaintiffs and Lowenstein Sandler LLP as Lead Counsel;

16

WHEREAS, on that same day the Court issued its Order Requiring Joint Status Report,

17

which provides that the parties to this action must prepare and submit to the Court a joint status

18

report that includes, inter alia, a discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and responses to

19

certain other discovery-related matters;

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

28
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY STAY,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2571-MCE-KJN

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

TAC [Docket No. 84];
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 from the action, which
judgment is now final;
WHEREAS, EY is the only Defendant remaining in the action;
WHEREAS, by Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2017 [Docket No. 106], the
Court denied EY’s motion to dismiss;
WHEREAS, EY filed its Answer to the TAC on April 25, 2017;
WHEREAS, by virtue of a series of so ordered Stipulations and the automatic stay of
discovery imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), all
discovery in this action, including the obligation to file a Rule 26(f) discovery plan and the
Parties’ responses to the discovery-related topics in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report, has
been stayed since the inception of the action;
WHEREAS, the Parties previously informed the Court that they intended 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 have met to discuss the case against EY and those discussions are
continuing:
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to avoid the burden and expense of discovery while they
continue to engage in these discussions; and
WHEREAS, the statements made in this Stipulation are for the purposes of this Stipulation
alone and are not otherwise admissible for any other purpose.

24
25
26
27
28

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 continue to explore a potential resolution of this action

before undertaking the burden and expense of discovery, all discovery in this action, including but
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY STAY,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2571-MCE-KJN

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

not limited to the filing of a Rule 26(f) discovery plan and/or responding to the discovery-related
topics in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report, is stayed for a further sixty (60) days following
adoption of this Stipulation by the Court (the “Further Stay”).
2.

Following the Further 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 Further 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

thirty (30) days from said denial to 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.

11
12

Dated: August 29, 2017

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP

13
By: /s/ Steven M. Hecht (as authorized on 8/28/17)
Steven M. Hecht
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P.;
SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P.;
AND DAVID M. FINEMAN

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Dated: August 29, 2017

MAYER BROWN LLP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By: /s/ Elizabeth Mann
Elizabeth Mann
350 South Grand Avenue
25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY STAY,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2571-MCE-KJN

1
2
3

ORDER
The Court hereby adopts the parties’ above stipulation as its order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 30, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY STAY,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2571-MCE-KJN