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

Filing 83

MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by John Chambers, Owen Chan, Fredy Cheung, Cisco Systems, Inc., Thomas Lam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sullivan, Kathleen) (Filed on 3/16/2012)

1

6

KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN (CA Bar No. 242261)
[e-mail]
FAITH E. GAY (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
ISAAC NESSER (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7

Attorneys for DEFENDANTS

2
3
4
5

8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
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, and LIU Guifu, and those
individual similarly situated,

12
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

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

Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx
Assigned to the Hon. Edward J. Davila
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO APPEAR
TELEPHONICALLY
Action Filed: May 19, 2011
FAC Filed: Sept. 2, 2011
Conference: March 23, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 1, 5th Floor

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx

1

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY

2

In the joint case management statement filed today, Defendants have requested an

3

adjournment of the case management conference currently scheduled for March 23, 2012 .

4

Defendants believe that such an adjournment is appropriate in view of the substantive and

5

procedural facts discussed below and in the joint case management statement. However, if the

6

Court denies Defendants´ adjournment request, then in the alternative the Defendants’ counsel

7

respectfully requests leave to appear at the conference by telephone.

8

There is good cause for counsel’s request to appear by telephone. First, Defendants’

9

counsel resides in New York and would need to travel to San Jose for a personal appearance,

10

thereby incurring significant time, attorneys fees, and travel costs. Second, there have been no

11

material developments in this litigation for several months: (a) Defendants’ response to the

12

Plaintiffs’ Complaint has been stayed since November 2011 by order of this Court and will

13

remain stayed for several months more pending resolution of two cases currently before the

14

United States Supreme Court (see Docket Item 76); (b) no discovery has been served in this

15

action; (c) there is no pending motion; and (d) there is no other dispute between the Parties that

16

requires judicial resolution. As such, it is the respectful view of the Defendants that any case

17

management matters to be addressed during the case management conference can be addressed by

18

telephone.

19

Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 and Section V of Your Honor’s

20

Scheduling Note, Defendants’ counsel respectfully requests leave to appear telephonically at the

21

scheduled March 23, 2012 case management conference (if that conference is not adjourned).
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
DATED: March 16, 2012
SULLIVAN, LLP

22
23
24

By /s/
Kathleen M. Sullivan
Faith E. Gay (pro hac vice)
Isaac Nesser (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendants

25
26
27
28

///
1
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx