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)

Download PDF
1 6 KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN (CA Bar No. 242261) FAITH E. GAY (pro hac vice) ISAAC NESSER (pro hac vice) 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?