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

Filing 78

PARTIAL OPPOSITION (re 76 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Admin Relief filed by John Chambers, Owen Chan, Fredy Cheung, Cisco Systems, Inc., Thomas Lam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sullivan, Kathleen) (Filed on 11/8/2011) Modified on 11/10/2011 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Kathleen M. Sullivan (CA Bar No. 242261)
[e-mail]
2
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
3 Redwood City, California 94065
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
4
5

Faith E. Gay (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Isaac Nesser (pro hac vice)
6
[e-mail]
7 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
[phone]
8 Telephone:
Facsimile:
[phone]
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14 Doe I et al.,
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.

17 Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.,
18

Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD
DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:11-cv-2449-ejd
DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Upon consideration of (a) Plaintiffs´ motion for administrative relief filed November 4,

3 2011, by which Plaintiffs seek to stay Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Corrected First
4 Amended Complaint (DE 67) (the "Motion to Dismiss") except for the portions of the Motion to
5 Dismiss that address the political question, act of state, and international comity doctrines; and (b)
6 Defendants’ brief in partial opposition to the administrative motion, filed November 8, 2011, by
7 which Defendants seek to stay the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, it is HEREBY ORDERED
8 AS FOLLOWS:
9

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby stayed in its entirety until after the

10 Supreme Court of the United States finally decides Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (No. 1011 1491) and Mohamad v. Rajub (No. 11-88);
12

2.

The existing briefing schedule (DE 74) on the Motion to Dismiss is hereby vacated;

3.

The currently-scheduled February 17, 2012 hearing (DE 74) on the Motion to

13 and
14

15 Dismiss is hereby adjourned.
16
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19 DATED:
20
21
22

Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Court Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:11-cv-2449-EJD
DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF