Nakash v. Nvidia Corporation

Filing 147

STIPULATION AND ORDER AS MOOT REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RULE 12 MOTIONS re 128 Stipulation. Reply memorandums were filed as stipulated by the parties. The hearing was held on October 19, 2009 and the matter was submitted to the Court after oral argument for further decision. Signed by Judge James Ware on 11/5/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ROBERT P. VARIAN (STATE BAR NO. 107459) [e-mail] JAMES N. KRAMER (STATE BAR NO. 154709) [e-mail] JUSTIN M. LICHTERMAN (STATE BAR NO. 225734) [e-mail] JOSHUA D. WATTS (STATE BAR NO. 240977) [e-mail] ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case No. C 08-04312 JW The NVIDIA GPU Litigation STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RULE 12 MOTIONS

OHS West:260728309.1

STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RULE 12 MOTIONS C 08-04312 JW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS, this Court in its Order dated July 2, 2009 moved the September 28, 2009 hearing date in the Stipulation and Order submitted by the parties to October 19, 2009 at 9 a.m., and instructed the parties that all briefing shall be completed on or before September 28, 2009; WHEREAS, NVIDIA Corporation's ("NVIDIA's") reply brief on its Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint must currently be filed by September 28, 2009; WHEREAS, the partner in charge of this matter for NVIDIA is out of the country on a long-planned family vacation during the period prior to September 28, and will not return to the United States until Sunday September 27, and the senior associate on the matter has conflicts during the preceding week as well due to the Jewish holidays; WHEREAS, an extension until October 1 for the reply brief would not deprive the Court of sufficient time to review the papers in advance of the October 19 hearing; and WHEREAS, the October 19, 2009 hearing date and all other deadlines set out in the July 2, 2009 Order would remain unaffected; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and NVIDIA, through their counsel of record and Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs, that NVIDIA may file its reply brief on the motion to dismiss by October 1, 2009.

Dated: September 16, 2009

ROBERT P. VARIAN JUSTIN M. LICHTERMAN JOSHUA D. WATTS Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

/s/ Robert P. Varian ROBERT P. VARIAN Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION

OHS West:260728309.1

-1-

STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RULE 12 MOTIONS C 08-04312 JW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: September 16, 2009

JEFF S. WESTERMAN SABRINA S. KIM Millberg LLP

/s/ Jeff S. Westerman JEFF S. WESTERMAN Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs and All Others Similarly Situated

The filer attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories, or from the single signatory (in the case, e.g., of a declaration) which shall serve in lieu of their signature(s) on the document.

IT IS SO ORDERED: The E:_______ is _____ as MOOT. Reply DATStipulation __found ____________ memorandums were filed as stipulated by the parties. The hearing was held on October 19, 2009 and the matter ED Ssubmitted to TRICourt after oral UNIT was TATES DIS the CT JUDGE argument for further decision. Dated: November 5, 2009 __________________________ United States District Court

OHS West:260728309.1

-2-

STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RULE 12 MOTIONS C 08-04312 JW