Bodri v. GoPro, Inc. et al

Filing 48

STIPULATION AND ORDER re (22 in 3:16-cv-00598-JST) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for All Defendants to Respond to Complaints and Continuing Case Management Conferences filed by GoPro, Inc., Nicholas D. Woodman, Anthon y J. Bates, Jack R. Lazar; (47 in 3:16-cv-00232-JST) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for All Defendants to Respond to Complaints and Continuing Case Management Conferences filed by Jack Lazar, GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodma n; (19 in 3:16-cv-00338-JST) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for All Defendants to Respond to Complaints and Continuing Case Management Conferences filed by Jack Lazar, GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman; (11 in 3:16-cv-00845- JST) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for All Defendants to Respond to Complaints and Continuing Case Management Conferences filed by Jack Lazar, GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 17, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB No. 126930)
[e-mail]
CATHERINE D. KEVANE (CSB No. 215501)
[e-mail]
KAITLIN O. KELLER (CSB No. 298737)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.875.2300
Facsimile:
415.281.1350
Attorneys for Defendants
GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman,
Jack Lazar, and Anthony Bates

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

13
14

JOSEPH BODRI, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

v.
GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS WOODMAN, and
JACK LAZAR,
Defendants.

20

BARRY LEE DEEM, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,

21

Plaintiff,

22
23
24
25

v.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINTS AND CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCES
Judge:

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Date Action Filed: January 13, 2016
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Judge:

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Date Action Filed: January 21, 2016

GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS WOODMAN, and
JACK LAZAR,
Defendants.

26
27
28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1
2
3
4
5

RENE VAN MEERBEKE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

MAJESTY PALMS, LLLP, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

8
9
10
11

AT

LAW

12
SAN FRA NCI S CO

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Date Action Filed: February 4, 2016

Defendants.

7

ATTO RNEY S

Judge:

GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS WOODMAN, and
JACK LAZAR, and ANTHONY J. BATES

6

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST
Judge:

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Date Action Filed: February 19, 2016

GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS WOODMAN, and
JACK LAZAR,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1

WHEREAS, the following actions are proposed class actions alleging violations of the

2

federal securities laws against GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro” or the “Company”), Nicholas Woodman,

3

Jack Lazar, and/or Anthony Bates (collectively, “Defendants”):

4

Bodri v. GoPro, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00232 JST, filed on January 13, 2016

5

(“Bodri”);

6

Deem v. GoPro, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00338 JST, filed on January 21, 2016

7

(“Deem”);

8

Rene Van Meerbeke v. GoPro, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00598 JST, filed on February

9

4, 2016 (“Van Meerbeke”); and
Majesty Palms, LLLP v. GoPro, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00845 JST, filed on

11

February 19, 2016 (“Majesty Palms”)

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

10

13
14
15

(together, the “Securities Actions”);
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2016, this Court issued an Initial Case Management
Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 6) in Bodri, the first-filed action, setting the following deadlines:
1.

March 23, 2016 for the parties to comply with certain requirements under the

16

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Northern District of California Civil

17

Local Rules (“Local Rules” or “Civil L.R.”) and Alternative Dispute Resolution

18

(“ADR”) Local Rules regarding discovery, early settlement, and the ADR Multi-

19

Option Program; and

20

2.

April 6, 2016 for the parties to file a Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial

21

disclosures or state objections in the Rule 26(f) Report, and file a Joint Case

22

Management Statement; and

23

3.

April 13, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. for an initial case management conference;

24

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2016 and on February 16, 2016, the Court issued Orders

25

deeming the Deem and Van Meerbeke actions “related cases” within the meaning of Civil L.R. 3-

26

12 and ordering that the case management deadlines in the reassigned cases be rescheduled (Dkt.

27

Nos. 9, 11);

28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

1

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1

WHEREAS, on March 7, 2016, a stipulated administrative motion to relate the Majesty

2

Palms action was filed, and on March 14, 2016, the Court issued an Order deeming the Majesty

3

Palms action a “related case” within the meaning of Civil L.R. 3-12 (Dkt. Nos. 13, 42);
WHEREAS, the Securities Actions are subject to the requirements of the Private

4
5

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (1995) (the “Reform

6

Act”), which sets forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities class actions;
WHEREAS, the Reform Act provides for the appointment of a lead plaintiff to act on

7
8

behalf of the purported class, and further provides that the appointment of lead plaintiff shall not

9

be made until after a decision on a motion to consolidate is rendered (15 U.S.C. § 78u-

10

4(a)(3)(B)(ii));
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2016, motions for consolidation and for appointment of lead

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

plaintiff and lead counsel in the consolidated actions were filed (“Lead Plaintiff Motions”) (Dkt.

13

Nos. 15, 16, 21, 26, 31, 32, 36, 40);
WHEREAS, the parties expect that the Court will set a schedule for a consolidated

14
15

complaint to be filed after the determination of the Lead Plaintiff Motions;
WHEREAS, Defendants anticipate filing motions to dismiss the claims asserted against

16
17
18

them;
WHEREAS, because the special procedures specified in the Reform Act contemplate

19

(i) the consolidation of similar actions; (ii) appointment of lead plaintiff; and (iii) the filing of a

20

single consolidated complaint by lead plaintiff and counsel to be appointed by the Court,

21

requiring Defendants to respond to the initial complaints in each of the Securities Actions would

22

result in the needless expenditure of private and judicial resources; and

23

WHEREAS, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants in the Securities Actions

24

respectfully submit that good cause exists to vacate the existing April 13, 2016 initial case

25

management conference and associated ADR deadlines until such time as the Court has the

26

opportunity to rule on the appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel;

27
28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

2

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1
2
3

IT IS ACCORDINGLY STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the
Parties, that:
1. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), the defendants’ obligation to answer, move or otherwise

4

respond to the complaint in any of the Securities Actions (i.e., the Bodri, Deem, Van

5

Meerbeke and Majesty Palms complaints) is stayed pending the appointment of lead

6

plaintiff and lead counsel. Thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a

7

mutually agreeable schedule for (i) the filing of a consolidated complaint (or

8

designation of an operative complaint), (ii) defendants’ responses to the consolidated

9

or operative complaint, and (iii) the briefing of any motions to dismiss filed by
defendants. The consolidated or operative complaint shall supersede all complaints

11

filed in any action that is consolidated herein.

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

10

2. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for

13

April 13, 2016 be vacated, along with any associated deadlines under the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, to be rescheduled for a date after the filing

15

of the consolidated complaint or after the Court rules on defendants’ anticipated

16

motion(s) to dismiss the consolidated complaint, as the Court determines to be

17

appropriate; all associated ADR Multi-Option Program deadlines likewise be deferred;

18

and any case management conference and associated deadlines being rescheduled by

19

the Court in the recently related Deem, Van Meerbeke and Majesty Palms matters be

20

similarly scheduled in light of the foregoing.

21

Dated: March 16, 2016

22

By: /s/ Catherine D. Kevane
Catherine D. Kevane

23

555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

24
25
26

Attorneys for Defendants
GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman,
Jack Lazar, and Anthony Bates

27
28

FENWICK & WEST LLP

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

3

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1

Dated: March 16, 2016

2

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

8

By: /s/ Charles H. Linehan
Lionel Z. Glancy
Robert V. Prongay
Lesley F. Portnoy
Charles H. Linehan
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Bodri

3
4
5
6
7

10
Dated: March 16, 2016

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
By: /s/ Laurence D. King
Laurence D. King
Mario Man-Lung Choi
350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

13
14
15
16

Robert N. Kaplan
Jeffrey Phillip Campisi
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21

Attorneys for Plaintiff Barry Lee Deem

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

4

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1

Dated: March 16, 2016

2

By: /s/ Shawn A. Williams
Shawn A. Williams
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

3
4
5
6

Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
Johnson & Weaver, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rene Van Meerbeke

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11
12

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Dated: March 16, 2016

STULL, STULL & BRODY
By: /s/ Patrice L. Bishop
Patrice L. Bishop
9430 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

13
14
15
16

Thomas J. McKenna
Gregory M. Egleston
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21

Attorneys for Plaintiff Majesty Palms, LLLP

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

5

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST

1

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), all signatories concur in filing this stipulation.

2
Dated: March 16, 2016

By: /s/ Catherine D. Kevane
Catherine D. Kevane

4
5

555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

6
7

Attorneys for Defendants
GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman,
Jack Lazar, and Anthony Bates

8
9

***
[PROPOSED] ORDER

10

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

Dated: March 17, 2016

16
17

n S.
J u d ge J o

RT

VED
APPRO

18

H

ER

Ti ga r

19
20

FO

15

LI

14

R NIA

United States District Court Judge

UNIT
ED

LAW
AT

ATTO RNEY S

13

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA Hon. Jon S. Tigar

RT
U
O

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

NO

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

FENWICK & WEST LLP

A

3

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND AND
CONTINUING CMC

6

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00232 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00338 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00598 JST
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00845 JST