In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation

Filing 86

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE #85 TO STAY ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/8/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012)

1

[COUNSEL IDENTIFIED ON SIGNATURE PAGE]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

In re ORACLE CORPORATION
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Master File No. C-10-03392-RS
STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY
ACTION

13
14
15

Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg
Ctrm: 3, 17th Floor

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION
Case No. C-10-03392-RS
sf-3101895

1

WHEREAS, on November 9, 2011, the Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by

2

nominal defendant Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) and individual defendants Jeffrey S. Berg, H.

3

Raymond Bingham, Michael J. Boskin, Safra Catz, Lawrence J. Ellison, Hector Garcia-Molina,

4

Jeffrey O. Henley, Donald L. Lucas, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., and Naomi O. Seligman (“Individual

5

Defendants,” and together with Oracle, “Defendants”), with leave to amend, and further ordered

6

that (1) Plaintiffs Lisa Galaviz and Philip T. Prince (“Plaintiffs”) shall file any amended

7

complaint within thirty days of the order, by December 9, 2011, and (2) setting a case

8

management conference for January 26, 2012;

9

WHEREAS, on November 10, 2011, the Superior Court for the State of California,

10

County of San Mateo, granted the Petition for Writ of Mandate for Inspection of Corporate Books

11

and Records filed by Plaintiffs on September 12, 2011;

12

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, this Court entered the parties’ stipulation extending

13

Plaintiffs’ time to file any amended complaint to February 10, 2012, and directed the parties to

14

appear at the case management conference on January 26, 2012;

15

WHEREAS, on January 6, 2012, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation extending

16

Plaintiffs’ time to file any amended complaint to March 12, 2012, and rescheduling the case

17

management conference for March 15, 2012;

18
19
20

WHEREAS, the parties intend to participate in private mediation in an effort to resolve
Plaintiffs’ claims;
WHEREAS, to promote judicial efficiency and to preserve Court and party resources, the

21

parties believe that the action should be stayed while the parties discuss the potential resolution of

22

Plaintiffs’ claims;

23

WHEREAS, a stipulation has been submitted to the Superior Court for the State of

24

California, County of San Mateo, wherein the parties agreed, subject to approval, to stay the

25

deadline for Oracle to comply with the San Mateo Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ Petition while the

26

parties attempt to resolve this action; and

27
28

WHEREAS, the agreed-upon schedule described below will not cause prejudice to any
party or unnecessary delay.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION
Case No. C-10-03392-RS
sf-3101895

1

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiffs and Defendants,

2

through their respective counsel of record, as follows, subject to the approval of this Court:

3

This action, including the deadline for Plaintiffs to file the Amended Consolidated

4

Shareholder Complaint, shall be stayed while the parties discuss the potential resolution of

5

Plaintiffs’ claims.

6

Any party may lift the stay at any time by providing written notice to the other parties and

7

the Court. Plaintiffs shall have 60 days after the date of such notice to file the Amended

8

Consolidated Shareholder Complaint, without waiver of Plaintiffs’ ability to seek additional time,

9

on a showing of good cause, including the opportunity to review documents in response to their

10

Petition for Writ of Mandate, and without waiver of Defendants’ ability to object. Defendants

11

shall have 45 days from the filing of the Amended Consolidated Shareholder Complaint to file a

12

responsive pleading. If Defendants file a motion in response to the Amended Consolidated

13

Shareholder Complaint, Plaintiffs’ opposition shall be filed within 30 days of any such motion,

14

and any reply brief shall be filed within 21 days of the opposition.

15
16
17
18

The case management conference scheduled for March 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., is vacated
while the parties discuss the potential resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims.
As long as this action is stayed, the parties will file with the Court a brief update of the
status of their efforts to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims at least every 90 days.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION
Case No. C-10-03392-RS
sf-3101895

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: February 7, 2012

3

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
JORDAN ETH
PHILIP T. BESIROF

4

By:

5

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof

425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendants Jeffrey S. Berg,
H. Raymond Bingham, Michael J. Boskin,
Safra Catz, Lawrence J. Ellison, Hector
Garcia-Molina, Jeffrey O. Henley, Donald L.
Lucas, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Naomi O.
Seligman, and Oracle Corporation

9
10
11
12
13

Dated: February 7, 2012

14
15

COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
NANCY L. FINEMAN
MARK C. MOLUMPHY
JORDANNA G. THIGPEN
By:

16
17

/s/ Jordanna G. Thigpen
Jordanna G. Thigpen

San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

18
19
20

JERRY K. CIMMET
[e-mail]
177 Bovet Road, Ste. 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

21
22
23

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KELSON
John M. Kelson
[e-mail]
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1425
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

24
25
26
27

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION
Case No. C-10-03392-RS
sf-3101895

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

2/8/12
Dated: _____________________

By: _____________________________
HON. RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

*

*

*

13

I, Philip T. Besirof, am the ECF user whose ID and password is being used to file this

14

STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby

15

attest that Jordanna G. Thigpen has concurred with this filing.

16

Dated: February 7, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

17
18

By:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION
Case No. C-10-03392-RS
sf-3101895

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof