Neal v. Polycom, Inc. et al

Filing 84

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE re 83 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER filed by Andrew M. Miller. Motions to Dismiss due by 6/26/2015. Responses due by 8/28/2015. Replies due by 10/2/2015. Motion Hearing set for 10/23/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Samuel Conti. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 6/18/15. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

PAUL T. FRIEDMAN (CA SBN 98381)
[e-mail]
PHILIP T. BESIROF (CA SBN 185053)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Defendant
ANDREW M. MILLER

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

MARK NATHANSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

13

CLASS ACTION

14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

Plaintiff,
v.
POLYCOM, INC., ANDREW M. MILLER,
MICHAEL R. KOUREY, and ERIC F.
BROWN,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
SCHEDULING ORDER

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, plaintiff Mark Nathanson

2

(“Lead Plaintiff”) and defendants Polycom, Inc., Michael R. Kourey, Eric F. Brown, and

3

Andrew M. Miller (“Defendants”) respectfully request that the Court adopt the parties’ stipulation

4

below as the order of the Court, which sets forth an amended schedule for response(s) to the

5

Second Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (ECF No. 79)

6

(the “Second Amended Complaint”).

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION
In support of this stipulation, the undersigned parties provide the following facts, which
are verified in the supporting Declaration of Philip T. Besirof:
1.

On February 24, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint for

Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “First Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 47);
2.

On April 25, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint

(ECF Nos. 51, 53);
3.

On April 3, 2015, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’

15

motions to dismiss (ECF No. 72), providing Lead Plaintiff until May 4, 2015, to amend his

16

complaint;

17

4.

On May 4, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint;

18

5.

On May 5, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which

19

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint are due by June 18, 2015; Lead

20

Plaintiff’s opposition briefs are due by August 3, 2015; and Defendants’ reply briefs are due by

21

August 31, 2015 (ECF No. 82) (“Scheduling Order”); and

22

6.

On June 15, 2015, the parties agreed to notice their motions to dismiss for hearing

23

on Friday, October 23, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., or at such other time as the matters may be heard. In

24

light of this proposed hearing date, the parties believe that the interests of judicial economy and

25

efficiency will be well served by modifying the current briefing schedule and reallocating the

26

time to better coincide with the proposed hearing date.

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

1

1
2

STIPULATION
In light of these facts, the undersigned parties jointly request that the Court modify the

3

briefing schedule for Defendants’ motions to dismiss currently set forth in the Scheduling Order

4

as follows:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

A.

Defendants shall file their motion(s) to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

no later than June 26, 2015;
B.

Lead Plaintiff shall file his opposition brief(s) to Defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss

no later than August 28, 2015;
C.

Defendants shall file their reply brief(s) in support of their motion(s) to dismiss no

later than October 2, 2015; and
D.

Defendants shall notice their motions to dismiss for hearing on Friday, October 23,

2015, at 10:00 a.m., or at such other time as the matter may be heard.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: June 17, 2015

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:

16

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof

20

Paul T. Friedman
Philip T. Besirof
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

21

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

17
18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

2

1

Dated: June 17, 2015

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation

2
By:
3
4

/s/ Rodney G. Strickland
Rodney G. Strickland
Keith E. Eggleton
Rodney G. Strickland
Luke A. Liss
Philip K. Rucker
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants Polycom, Inc.,
Michael R. Kourey, and Eric F. Brown

11
12
13
14

Dated: June 17, 2015

POMERANTZ LLP
By:

15

/s/ Jeremy A. Lieberman
Jeremy A. Lieberman
JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN
EMMA GILMORE
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

16
17
18
19

22

PATRICK V. DAHLSTROM
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

23

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Mark Nathanson

20
21

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

3

1

ECF ATTESTATION

2
I, Philip Besirof, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file
3
this motion. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Rodney G.
4
Strickland and Jeremy A. Lieberman have concurred in this filing.
5
6

Dated: June 17, 2015

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

7
By:
8
9

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof
Paul T. Friedman
Philip T. Besirof
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

4

1

DECLARATION OF PHILIP T. BESIROF

2

I, PHILIP T. BESIROF, hereby declare as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted

4

to practice before this Court. I am a member of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, and

5

counsel of record for defendant Andrew Miller. I submit this Declaration in support of the

6

parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (hereafter, the “Stipulation”). If called as a

7

witness, I would testify to the facts listed below.

8
9
10

2.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, I attest that the facts set forth in the Stipulation,

paragraphs 1 through 6 inclusive, are all true and accurate.
3.

This is the parties’ ninth request for a modification of time and the second with

11

respect to the Second Amended Complaint. The parties previously filed stipulations to extend the

12

time to respond to previously operative complaints on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17), and

13

December 30, 2013 (ECF No. 45). Both of these stipulations were approved by the Court

14

(see ECF Nos. 18, 46). Additionally, the parties filed six stipulated requests to continue the

15

Initial Case Management Conference; these were filed on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17),

16

December 9, 2013 (ECF No. 36), April 4, 2014 (ECF No. 49), November 21, 2014 (ECF No. 64),

17

January 2, 2015 (ECF No. 66), and February 6, 2015 (ECF No. 69). The Court granted these six

18

previous requests (see ECF Nos. 18, 39, 50, 65, 67, 68, 70). Finally, the parties filed one

19

stipulation to extend the time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2015

20

(ECF No. 80), which was granted on May 5, 2015 (ECF No. 82).

21
22

4.

Other than the briefing scheduling for the motions to dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint, the proposed schedule will not impact any other deadlines or dates set by the Court.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

5

1

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

2

foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed in San Francisco, California,

3

on this 17th day of June, 2015.

4

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

5
By:

6

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof

7
8
9
10

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

June 18, 2015
Dated: __________________________
THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

6