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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 KATHRYN LEE BOYD, ESQ. (SBN 189496) lboyd@srbr-law.com RAJIKA L. SHAH, ESQ. (SBN 232994) rshah@srbr-law.com SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 360 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (323) 302-9488 Fax: (323) 931-4990 11 TERRI MARSH, ESQ. (pro hac vice) terri.marsh@hrlf.net BRIAN PIERCE, ESQ. (pro hac vice) bjpierce@gmail.com HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-369-4977 Fax: 202-355-6701 12 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS 7 8 9 10 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG 16 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 Honorable Jeremy Fogel, U.S.D.J. PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION CONSENTING TO PLAINTIFFS PROCEEDING ANONYMOUSLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND STATUS AND CONTINUING 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 PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING A CHANGE OF HEARING DATE Doe et al. v. Cisco et al. (Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG) 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 3 Upon consideration of Defendants’ administrative motion dated June 27, 2011, 4 consenting to Plaintiffs’ proceeding anonymously as Does and through Next Friend status 5 as requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Commence and Proceed as Pseudonymous Plaintiffs 6 and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Commence and Proceed Through Appointed Next Friend 7 (together, “Plaintiffs’ Motions”) through the time of decision and order on Defendants’ 8 Motion to Dismiss, and requesting a change of hearing date for Plaintiffs’ Motions, as 9 well as Plaintiffs’ Response and Opposition filed on July 1, 2011, IT IS HEREBY 10 ORDERED THAT 11  Plaintiffs’ Motions are Granted through the pendency of, and until this Court’s 12 Decision and Order on, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, at which time this Court 13 will set a new date for hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions. 14 15 OR 16 17  In conformity with the Court’s San Jose Division Standing Order Regarding Case 18 Management in Civil Cases, Plaintiffs’ Motions will be heard in this Court on July 19 29, 2011, as provided in Plaintiffs’ Amended Notices filed on June 21, 2011. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: ___________________ ______________________________ Hon. Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP 6310 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90048 -1PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER Doe et al. v. Cisco et al. (Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?