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
15
16
17
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO APPEAR
TELEPHONICALLY
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx
Assigned to the Hon. Edward J. Davila
Action Filed: May 19, 2011
FAC Filed: Sept. 2, 2011
vs.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., John CHAMBERS,
Thomas LAM, Owen CHAN, Fredy
CHEUNG, and DOES 1-100,
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
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Having considered Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Appear Telephonically at the
3
March 23, 2012 case management conference, and with good cause shown, the Court ORDERS
4
that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated: March __, 2012
__________________________________________
The Honorable Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER ON 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?