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)
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
FAITH E. GAY (pro hac vice)
faithgay@quinnemanuel.com
ISAAC NESSER (pro hac vice)
isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
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
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?