Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Re: Proof of Service of Process and Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss by Doe I, Doe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, Liu Guifu, Ivy He, Charles Lee, Roe VII, Roe VIII. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Shah, Rajika) (Filed on 6/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KATHRYN LEE BOYD, ESQ. (SBN 189496)
[e-mail]
RAJIKA L. SHAH, ESQ. (SBN 232994)
[e-mail]
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 360
Los Angeles, California 90048
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TERRI MARSH, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
BRIAN PIERCE, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION
1615 L Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15
16
17
18

DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE
IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles
LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu,

19
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23
24

vs.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., John
CHAMBERS, Thomas LAM, Owen
CHAN, and DOES 1-100,

Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
JOINT STIPULATION RE: PROOF OF
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
Action Filed: May 19, 2011
Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF

STIPULATION

1
2

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE

3

III, DOE IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu (“Plaintiffs”)

4

and Defendants CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (“Cisco”), John CHAMBERS (“Chambers”), Thomas

5

LAM (“Lam”), and Owen CHAN (“Chan”) (collectively, the “Parties”), as follows:

6

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs received an email from William Friedman, Director of

7

Legal Services at Cisco (“Mr. Friedman”), on May 20, 2011, informing counsel for Plaintiffs

8

that he was in receipt of the Complaint filed in the above-referenced case on May 19, 2011, and

9

that Cisco would accept service of process on behalf of both Chambers and Cisco via PDF/email

10
11

sent to him at email address [e-mail];
WHEREAS, Rajika Shah (“Ms. Shah”), associate counsel for Plaintiffs, responded to Mr.

12

Friedman’s email and stated that she would forward service copies of the Summons and

13

Complaint and other initiating documents to Mr. Friedman on behalf of both Cisco and

14

Chambers as PDF documents via email to email address [e-mail];

15

WHEREAS, Ms. Shah emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address

16

[e-mail] of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents consisting of

17

the following in PDF format on May 27, 2011:

18



Complaint

19



Summons on Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.

20



Summons on Defendant John Chambers

21



Certification of Interested Parties

22



Civil Case Cover Sheet

23



San Jose Division Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases

24



N.D.Cal. Standing Order Regarding Contents of Joint Case Management
Statement

25
26



Order Reassigning the case to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel for all proceedings

27



Notice of Electronic Filing assigning the case to Magistrate Judge;

28

WHEREAS, Ms. Shah also emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address
-1-

SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF

1

[e-mail] of Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed anonymously and through appointed next

2

friends and the pro hac vice applications of Terri Marsh and Brian Pierce consisting of the

3

following in PDF format on May 27, 2011:

4



Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Proceed Anonymously

5



[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Anonymously

6



Declaration of Terri Marsh in support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously

7



Exhibit A to Declaration of Terri Marsh

8



Exhibit B to Declaration of Terri Marsh

9



Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next
Friend

10
11



Next Friend

12
13



Declaration of Terri Marsh in support of Motion to Proceed Through Appointed
Next Friend

14
15

[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Through Appointed



Declaration of Roe III in support of Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next
Friend

16
17



Pro hac vice application of Terri Marsh

18



[Proposed] Order Granting Terri Marsh pro hac vice application

19



Pro hac vice application of Brian Pierce

20



[Proposed] Order Granting Brian Pierce pro hac vice application

21

WHEREAS, Ms. Shah also emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address

22

[e-mail] of all other documents on the docket in the above-referenced case as of May

23

27, 2011, consisting of the following in PDF format, on May 27, 2011:

24



Summons on Defendant Owen Chan

25



Summons on Defendant Thomas Lam

26



Order Setting Initial CMC with Magistrate Judge Grewal

27



Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Grewal in civil matters

28



Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Grewal re: Settlement Conference Procedures
-2-

SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF

1



Plaintiffs’ Declination to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge Grewal

2



Notice of Impending Reassignment of District Judge;

3

WHEREAS, Mr. Friedman acknowledged in a telephone conversation with Ms. Shah on

4

June 3, 2011, that he had received service of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating

5

documents as set forth above and that service on Defendants Cisco and Chambers was valid;
WHEREAS, Mr. Friedman also acknowledged in the June 3 telephone conversation with

6
7

Ms. Shah that Cisco and Chambers had hired outside counsel and would be represented going

8

forward by Kathleen Sullivan of the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn

9

Emanuel”);
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, Ms. Shah spoke with Isaac Nesser (“Mr. Nesser”),

10
11

associate counsel at Quinn Emanuel, and Mr. Nesser confirmed that Cisco and Chambers had

12

been validly served with the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth

13

above;

14

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2011, Ms. Shah spoke again with Mr. Nesser, who confirmed

15

that Quinn Emanuel had been authorized to accept service on Lam and Chan of the Summons

16

and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth above effective as of May 27, 2011;

17

WHEREAS Cisco, Chambers, Lam, and Chan (collectively, “Defendants”) do each

18

hereby acknowledge that service of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents

19

as set forth above is valid and effective as to each of them as of May 27, 2011, and hereby waive

20

any and all defense(s) and objections to service of process;

21
22
23
24
25

WHEREAS Defendants have expressed their intent to file a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint;
NOW THEREFOR IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties,
through counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants, that:
1.

Subject to and in accordance with the recitations set forth above, service of the

26

Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth above is valid and effective

27

as to Defendants as of May 27, 2011.

28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

2.

Defendants hereby waive any and all defense(s) and objections to service of
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF

1

process in the above-referenced action.
3.

3
4

This Stipulation will constitute a valid Proof of Service upon filing with the

4.

2

The Parties hereby stipulate to the following briefing schedule on Defendants’

Court.

5

forthcoming Motion to Dismiss:

6

a.

7

due no later than August 4, 2011;

8

b.

9
10
11

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and any and all supporting documents are

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and any and all supporting

documents are due no later than October 12, 2011; and
c.

Defendants’ Reply and any and all supporting documents are due no later

than November 14, 2011.

12
13
14
15

DATED: June 17, 2011

SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD &
RADER, LLP
By:

16

/s/Rajika L. Shah
Rajika L. Shah, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17
18
19
20
21

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
By:

/s/Kathleen Sullivan
Kathleen Sullivan, Esq.

22
23
24

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

25
26

Attorneys for Defendants

27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

-4JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF