In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
Filing
135
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying (134) Stipulation in case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK.Associated Cases: 5:11-cv-02509-LHK, 5:11-cv-03538-LHK, 5:11-cv-03539-LHK, 5:11-cv-03540-LHK, 5:11-cv-03541-LHK, 5:12-cv-01262-LHK(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2012)
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document134 Filed05/23/12 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 63607)
Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716)
Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260)
Brendan Glackin (State Bar No. 199643)
Dean Harvey (State Bar No. 250298)
Anne B. Shaver (State Bar No. 255928)
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Class
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN JOSE DIVISION
13
14
IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
15
16
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
17
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE__
AS MODIFIED
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1039341.2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document134 Filed05/23/12 Page2 of 4
1
ALL PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE:
2
Due to a conflict in the current schedule for Plaintiffs’ counsel, by agreement of all
3
counsel, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference set by the Court
4
for May 31, 2012 be postponed to June 4, 2012, at a time convenient for the Court. The Court has
5
offered June 1 and June 13 as possible alternate dates, but not all counsel are available on those
6
dates.
7
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:
8
Dated: May 23, 2012
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
9
10
By: ___/s/ Joseph R. Saveri __________________
Joseph R. Saveri
11
Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Class
12
13
Dated: May 23, 2012
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By:
14
15
/s/ Michael F. Tubach
Michael F. Tubach
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
16
17
Dated: May 23, 2012
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By:
18
19
/s/ Daniel Purcell
Daniel Purcell
Attorneys for Defendant Lucasfilm Ltd.
20
21
Dated: May 23, 2012
JONES DAY
By:
22
23
/s/ David C. Kiernan
David C. Kiernan
Attorneys for Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.
24
25
Dated: May 23, 2012
MAYER BROWN LLP
By:
26
27
/s/ Lee H. Rubin
Lee H. Rubin
Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
28
1039341.2
-1-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document134 Filed05/23/12 Page3 of 4
1
Dated: May 23, 2012
2
By:
3
Dated: May 23, 2012
6
/s/ Robert A. Mittelstaedt
Robert A. Mittelstaedt
Attorneys for Defendant Intuit Inc.
8
10
JONES DAY
By:
7
9
/s/ Frank Hinman
Frank Hinman
Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corp.
4
5
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
Dated: May 23, 2012
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By:
11
12
/s/ Emily Johnson Henn
Emily Johnson Henn
Attorneys for Defendant Pixar
13
14
Filer’s Attestation
15
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in
16
the filing of the document has been obtained from all the signatories.
17
18
Dated: May 23, 2012
/s/ Dean M. Harvey
Dean M. Harvey
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1039341.2
-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document134 Filed05/23/12 Page4 of 4
1
2
3
The stipulation is DENIED. The case management conference is continued to July 25, 2012,
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
at 2:00 p.m.
May 24,
Dated: ________________. 2012
By:
4
______________________________
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
S
RT
ER
27
R NIA
ucy H.
Ko h
A
H
26
Judge L
FO
NO
25
ERED
O ORD
IT IS S
DIFIED
AS MO
LI
UNIT
ED
24
RT
U
O
23
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
28
1039341.2
-3-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
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?