Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
42
STIPULATION and proposed Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Sullivan, Kathleen) (Filed on 7/22/2011)
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Kathleen M. Sullivan (CA Bar No. 242261)
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood City, California 94065
(650) 801-5000
Telephone:
Facsimile:
(650) 801-5100
Faith E. Gay (pro hac vice)
faithgay@quinnemanuel.com
Isaac Nesser (pro hac vice)
isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone:
(212) 849-7000
Facsimile:
(212) 849-7100
Attorneys for Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc.,
John Chambers, Thomas Lam, and Owen Chan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Doe I, Doe II, Ivy He, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V,
Doe VI, ROE VII, Charles Lee, Roe VIII, Liu
Guifu, and those individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXCEED APPLICABLE
PAGE LIMIT
v.
Cisco Systems, Inc., John Chambers, Thomas
Lam, Owen Chan, and Does 1-100,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit
1
WHEREAS, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is scheduled to be filed on
2 August 4, 2011;
3
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint is 52 pages long and asserts fourteen
4 causes of action;
5
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that the applicable 25-page limit for
6 briefs in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ forthcoming Motion to Dismiss the
7 Complaint is insufficient to address the claims and issues raised in the Complaint; and
8
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants further agree that the applicable 15-page limit
9 for Defendants’ reply brief in support of their forthcoming Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is
10 insufficient to address the claims and issues raised in the Complaint; and
11
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants further agree that extending the page limit will
12 allow the parties to address adequately each claim and issue, and assist the Court in efficiently and
13 effectively resolving Defendants’ forthcoming Motion to Dismiss the Complaint;
14
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows:
15
1.
Defendants’ opening brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and
16 Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition that Motion, may each be a maximum of 50 pages of text, excluding
17 tables of contents, tables of authorities, and supporting documents.
18
2.
Defendants’ reply brief in further support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
19 may be a maximum of 20 pages of text, excluding tables of contents, tables of authorities, and
20 supporting documents.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit
1
2
DATED: July 22, 2011
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
3
By /s/ Kathleen M. Sullivan
Kathleen M. Sullivan
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
Faith E. Gay
faithgay@quinnemanuel.com
Isaac Nesser
isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com
4
5
6
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8
9
SCHWARCZ RIMBERG BOYD & RADER, LLP
10
By /s/ K. Kee Boyd
K. Kee Boyd*
lboyd@srbr-law.com
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13
14
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION
15
By /s/ Terri M. Marsh
Terri M. Marsh*
terri.marsh@hrlf.net
16
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19
20
21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
DATED:
, 2011
23
24
Hon. Jeremy Fogel
25
26
27
*
28
I have obtained signatory's consent to file this stipulation and proposed order.
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Applicable Page Limit
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?