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

Filing 34

Letter Brief re 29 Letter Brief, Opposition to Defendants' Letter Brief filed byDoe I, Doe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, Liu Guifu, Ivy He, Charles Lee, Roe VII, Roe VIII. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rajika Shah, # 2 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 29 ) (Boyd, Kathryn) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

1

2
3

4
5
6

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, CA 90048
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

11

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. 20036
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

12

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

7

8
9

10

13

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

14
15
16

Case No. 5:II-cv-02449-JF-PSG

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,

17

20

vs.

21

22
23
24
25

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

Assigned to the Han. Jeremy Fogel, U.S.DJ

DECLARATION OF RAJIKA SHAH IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
REQUESTING A CHANGE OF
HEARING DATE

Action filed: May 19,2011
Hearing: July 29,2011, 9:00am
Courtroom: 3, 5th Floor

26
27
28
SCHWARCZ. RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90048

DECLARATION OF RAJIKA SHAI-I IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING A CHANGE OF HEARING DATE
Doe et aJ. v. Cisco et aJ. (Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-.IF-PSG)

1

DECLARATION OF RAJIKA SHAH

2

3

I, RAJIKA SHAH, declare as follows:

4

1.

5

practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. I am an

6

associate with the law firm of Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd & Rader, LLP ("SRBR"), one of

7

the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs. I am one of the attorneys responsible for this file and

8

have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called as a witness I would and

9

could competently testify thereto.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in California and admitted to

10

2.

11

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP ("Quinn Emanuel"), counsel for Defendants

12

Cisco Systems, Inc., John Chambers, Thomas Lam, and Owen Chan (collectively,

13

"Defendants"). I informed Mr. Nesser that Plaintiffs intended to notice the hearing date on

14

Plaintiffs' Motion to Commence and Proceed as Pseudonymous Plaintiffs ("Motion to

15

Proceed Anonymously") and Motion to Commence and Proceed Through Appointed Next

16

Friend ("Motion to Proceed Through Next Friend") (together, "July 29 Motions"), which

17

Plaintiffs filed on May 19, 2011, simultaneously with the Complaint, for July 29, 2011.

18

Mr. Nesser did not indicate that counsel for Defendants would be unable to attend a

19

hearing on July 29. He did ask whether Plaintiffs would be willing to postpone the hearing

20

date until after the hearing on the motion to dismiss which Defendants expected to file. I

21

indicated that I would confer with senior counsel for Plaintiffs regarding his request.

22

3.

23

for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants over the next several days, I and my co-counsel

24

Terri Marsh ("Ms. Marsh") indicated that Plaintiffs wished for the July 29 Motions to be

25

heard on that date. At no time did counsel for Defendants ever indicate to me or my co-

26

counsel that the July 29,2011 hearing date would cause them undue prejudice.

27

4.

28

they had any objections to a hearing date of}p!y 29 that would cause them or their clients

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

On June 7, 2011, I spoke with Isaac Nesser ("Mr. Nesser"), associate counsel at

In subsequent email correspondence and telephone conversations between counsel

On June 17, 2011, I again emailed counsel for Defendants to specifically ask if

DECLARATION OF RAJllCA SHAH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING A CHANGE OF HEARING DATE
Doe et al. v. Cisco et al. (Case No. 5: 1l-cv-02449-JF-PSG)

1

undue prejudice, as required by the San Jose Standing Order Re: Case Management in

2

Civil Cases. I asked counsel to advise so that we could "meet" in a suitable form, such as

3

a telephone conference, and confer, or, if counsel had no such objection, there would be

4

no need to confer. The email response I received from counsel for Defendants attached

5

comments to a draft stipulation between the parties regarding proof of service of the

6

Summons and Complaint and an amended briefing schedule on Defendants' expected

7

motion to dismiss. It did not respond to my June 17 request to meet-and-confer regarding

8

the July 29 hearing date. A true and correct copy of the June 17 email and response is

9

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

10

5.

11

email request to meet-and-confer regarding the July 29 hearing date.

12

6.

13

administrative letter motion to postpone the July 29 hearing date.

14

7.

15

Defendants intended to file an administrative motion on June 27 seeking to alter the

16

briefing and hearing schedule for the July 29 Motions.

17

8.

18

Motion, he spoke with the Court clerk about the procedure for requesting a postponement

19

of the July 29 hearing date. Mr. Nesser indicated that the clerk said the request could be

20

made by letter or by motion, but that in any event it would be considered as an

21

administrative motion. Mr. Nesser also informed me that the clerk had asked him to

22

inform counsel for Plaintiffs of the motion prior to filing, and also that Plaintiffs' response

23

would be due within four (4) days. Mr. Nesser said he had just discovered that counsel for

24

Plaintiffs had not been so informed, and thus would not object if Plaintiffs wished to have

25

two additional days in which to file their opposition.

26

III

27

III

28

III

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

I did not receive any further response from counsel for Defendants to my June 17

On June 27, 2011, I received electronic notice via ECF of Defendants'

Counsel for Plaintiffs were not informed prior to June 27,2011, that counsel for

On June 29,2011, Mr. Nesser called me and informed me that, prior to filing the

-2DECLARATION OF RAJIKA SHAH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING A CHANGE OF HEARING DATE
Doe et al. v. Cisco et al. (Case No. 5:1I-cv-02449-JF-PSG)

1
2

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.

3
4

Executed this 1st day of July 2011, at Los Angeles, California.

5

6

7
8

9
10
11

12

13
14
15
16
17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25
26
27

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

-3DECLARATION OF RAJIKA SHAH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING A CHANGE OF HEARING DATE
Doe et a1. v. Cisco et a1. (Case No. S:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG)

EXHIBIT A

Rajika Shah Esq.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Kathleen Sullivan [[e-mail]]
Friday, June 17, 20111:22 PM
Rajika Shah Esq.; Isaac Nesser
Terri Marsh'; 'Lee Boyd'; Faith Gay
RE: Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. / Stipulation on service and briefing schedule
4201879_Stip re service of process and m2d briefing schedule.DOC

Rajika,
Here are our proposed edits to the stip. If you are ok with them I will sign and return.
Thanks,
Kathleen

From: Rajika Shah Esq. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:34 PM
To: Isaac Nesser
Cc: 'Terri Marsh'; 'Lee Boyd'; Kathleen Sullivan; Faith Gay
Subject: RE: Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. / Stipulation on service and briefing schedule
Isaac,
Although when we spoke on the telephone yesterday you had indicated that the stipulation language seemed fine and that
it was possible we could finalize the stipulation yesterday, we stil! have not had any comments from you. Do you have any
comments, and if not, please let me know a firm time by which we will receive your signed version.
Also, regarding the July 29 hearing date, I note Kathleen's email from June 13 stating that "We see no point to putting
your clients through the needless stress of a contested hearing on anonymity on July 29 when the issue need be
addressed only if the case proceeds." If you have any objections to a hearing date of July 29th that would cause you or
your clients undue prejudice as is required by the San Jose Standing Order re: case management in civil cases, please
advise so that we can "meet" in some suitable form (e.g., telephone conference) and confer. If you have no such
objection, of course there is no need to confer.
Best,
Rajika

From: Isaac Nesser [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:07 PM
To: Rajika Shah Esq.
Cc: 'Terri Marsh'; 'Lee Boyd'; Kathleen Sullivan; Faith Gay
Subject: RE: Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. / Stipulation on service and briefing schedule

Rajika,
As I read Local rule 6-1(a), we don't need this to be so ordered. Agree?
Isaac
From: Rajika Shah Esq. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:35 PM
To: Isaac Nesser
Cc: 'Terri Marsh'; 'Lee Boyd'
Subject: Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. / Stipulation on service and briefing schedule
1