Neal v. Polycom, Inc. et al

Filing 94

STIPULATION AND ORDER Enlarging Time for Defendants' Reply Briefs. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 85 and 86] MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Replies due by 10/9/2015. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 10/02/2015. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2015)

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] ORDER
ENLARGING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS’
REPLY BRIEFS

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 extends the time for Defendants to file their reply briefs

5

from October 2 to October 9, 2015.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

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’

14

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

15

complaint;

16
17
18

4.

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

(ECF No. 79);
5.

On June 18, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which

19

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were due on June 26, 2015;

20

Lead Plaintiff’s opposition brief was due on August 28, 2015; and Defendants’ reply briefs are

21

due on October 2, 2015 (ECF No. 84) (“Scheduling Order”);

22

6.

On June 26, 2015, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 85, 86);

23

7.

On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed opposition (ECF No. 92);

24

8.

Due to unexpected scheduling conflicts for Mr. Miller’s counsel, the parties have

25

agreed to extend the due date for Defendants’ reply briefs by one week to Friday,

26

October 9, 2015; and

27
28

9.

Other than the briefing schedule for Defendants’ reply briefs, the proposed

extension will not impact any other deadlines or dates set by the Court, including the hearing date
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

1

1

set for October 23, 2015.

2
3

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

4

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

5

as follows: Defendants shall file their reply brief(s) in support of their motions to dismiss no later

6

than October 9, 2015.

7
8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: October 1, 2015

9

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:

10

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof

14

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]

15

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

11
12
13

16
17
18

Dated: October 1, 2015

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
By:

19

/s/ Keith E. Eggleton
Keith E. Eggleton
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]

20
21
22
23
24
25

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

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

2

1

Dated: October 1, 2015

2

POMERANTZ LLP
By:

3

/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]

4
5
6
7
8

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

9
10
11

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Mark Nathanson

12
13

ECF ATTESTATION

14
15
16
17

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

18
19
20

Dated: October 1, 2015

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:

21

/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]

22
23
24
25
26

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

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

3

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 8 inclusive, are all true and accurate.
3.

This is the parties’ tenth request for a modification of time and the third 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). These stipulations were approved by the Court (see ECF Nos.

14

18, 46). Additionally, the parties filed six stipulated requests to continue the Initial Case

15

Management Conference; these were filed on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17), December 9,

16

2013 (ECF No. 36), April 4, 2014 (ECF No. 49), November 21, 2014 (ECF No. 64), January 2,

17

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

18

requests (see ECF Nos. 18, 39, 50, 65, 67, 68, 70). Finally, the parties filed two stipulations to

19

extend the time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2015 and June 17, 2015

20

(ECF Nos. 80, 83), which were granted on May 5, 2015 and June 18, 2015, respectively

21

(ECF Nos. 82, 84).

22

4.

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

23

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

24

the Court.

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

4

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 1st day of October, 2015.

4

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

5
By:

6

/s/ Philip T. Besirof
Philip T. Besirof

7
8

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

S
10/02/2015
Dated: __________________________

UNIT
ED

am
Judge S

RT

16

ti

uel Con

NO

15

17

H

ER

18

R NIA

THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI
United States District Judge

14

FO

13

RT
U
O

12

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

10

[PROPOSED] ORDER

A

9

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

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

5