Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Crane et al

Filing 20

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 16 Stipulation.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JOSEPH P. GUGLIELMO (admitted pro hac vice)
DONALD A. BROGGI (admitted pro hac vice)
JOSEPH D. COHEN (#155601)
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
LIONEL Z. GLANCY (#134180)
MICHAEL GOLDBERG (#188669)
ROBERT V. PRONGAY (#270796)
CASEY E. SADLER (#274241)
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
[Additional counsel on signature page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSEMARY A. CRANE, PATRICK D.
SPANGLER, PATRICK S. JONES,
PETER C. BRANDT, PHILIPPE O.
CHAMBON, DARREN W. COHEN,
THOMAS L. HARRISON, GILBERT H.
KLIMAN, JOHN E. VORIS, MARK A.
WAN, JACOB J. WINEBAUM and
EPOCRATES, INC.,

26
27

Defendants.

Case No. C 13-00945 LHK
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,
RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND
EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO
THE COMPLAINT
[Civil L.R. 16-2, 7-12]
DATE: June 6, 2013
TIME: 2:00 p.m.
COURTROOM: 8
Honorable Lucy H. Koh

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO ANSWER
OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
5:13-CV-00945-LHK

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 16-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System

2 of the City of Detroit (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Epocrates, Inc., Rosemary A. Crane, Patrick D.
3 Spangler, Patrick S. Jones, Peter C. Brandt, Philippe O. Chambon, Darren W. Cohen, Thomas L.
4 Harrison, Gilbert H. Kliman, John E. Voris, Mark A. Wan, and Jacob J. Winebaum (collectively,
5 “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby agree and stipulate that good cause exists to
6 request an order from the Court rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference currently
7 set for June 6, 2013 (pursuant to this Court’s March 1, 2013 Order Setting Initial Case
8 Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (DE 2) (the “March 1, 2013 Order”)), adjusting
9 accordingly the related deadlines set forth therein, and adjourning Defendants’ time to answer,
10 move or otherwise respond to the Complaint as set forth herein.
11
12

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 1, 2013 (the “Complaint”), that asserts

13 claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of
14 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on behalf of a purported class against Defendants;
15

WHEREAS, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) sets

16 forth mandatory, comprehensive and specific procedures governing the selection of a lead plaintiff
17 to oversee class actions brought under the federal securities laws. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4, et seq.;
18

WHEREAS, the PSLRA requires that notice of the commencement of an action be given

19 to permit other putative class members (who may seek to serve as lead plaintiff on behalf of the
20 class) the opportunity to file motions: (a) to be appointed lead plaintiff, to oversee and direct the
21 prosecution of the action; and (b) to consolidate other complaints which may be filed arising from
22 the same nexus of operative facts. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)&(B). This notice must be given
23 within 20 days after the filing of the securities fraud class action. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
24 Prospective lead plaintiffs are given sixty (60) days from the publication of notice to move for
25 appointment as lead plaintiff, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II), with the Court to rule upon the
26 competing motions – applying the rules laid out in 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) – thereafter.
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
5:13-CV-00945-LHK

2

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff asserts that the notice of the commencement of this action was

2 published on the Globe Newswire on March 8, 2013, advising all putative class members that they
3 have until May 7, 2013 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff. See Docket Entry No. 6;
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff anticipates that after the appointment of the lead plaintiff, lead

5 plaintiff will file an amended complaint;
6

WHEREAS, in effect, this action cannot be prosecuted against any defendant until this

7 Court first selects a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the putative class;
8

WHEREAS, it would be more efficient to extend the time for Defendants to answer or

9 otherwise respond to the Complaint in the action until after the Court’s appointment of a lead
10 plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s designation of an operative complaint or filing of an amended
11 complaint;
12

WHEREAS, the March 1, 2013 Order directed the parties to meet, confer and complete

13 initial disclosures no later than May 15, 2013 in advance of the initial case management
14 conference currently set for June 5, 2013; and
15

WHEREAS, the parties believe that, because the PSLRA stays all discovery, including

16 initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions to dismiss in securities actions such as this
17 one, it is appropriate to defer the initial case management conference and the completion of initial
18 disclosures until the lead plaintiff has been appointed, the lead plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel
19 has been approved, the lead plaintiff has filed a consolidated amended complaint, Defendants have
20 had the opportunity to file any motion to dismiss, and the Court has ruled on Defendants’
21 anticipated motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325, 32822 29 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding F.R.C.P. 26(a)’s initial disclosure requirements are disclosures or other
23 proceedings for purposes of PSLRA’s stay provision, and must be stayed pending disposition of
24 motion to dismiss).
25

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the

26 parties through their undersigned counsel, that:
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
5:13-CV-00945-LHK

3

1

1.

Defendants need not answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this

2 action until a date to be set following the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
3 §78u-4(a)(3)(B) and the filing by such lead plaintiff of an amended complaint.
4

2.

Upon the Court’s appointment of a lead plaintiff, the lead plaintiff will have sixty

5 (60) days to designate an operative complaint or file an amended complaint.
6

3.

Upon the designation of an operative complaint or the filing of an amended

7 complaint, Defendants will have sixty (60) days to answer, move against, or otherwise respond to
8 the Complaint; the lead plaintiff will have forty-five (45) days to file opposition(s) to any
9 motion(s) to dismiss filed by Defendants; and Defendants will have thirty (30) days to file replies
10 to lead plaintiff’s opposition(s).
11

4.

The Initial Case Management Conference shall be held thirty (30) days after an

12 order directing Defendants to file an answer (if any), or as soon as possible thereafter consistent
13 with the Court’s schedule.
14

5.

This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

6.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’

15 relief.
16

17 rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would
18 otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.
19

7.

The Parties have not sought any other extensions of time in this action.

20

8.

The Parties do not seek to reset these dates for the purpose of delay, and the

21 proposed new dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates as the Court has yet to
22 schedule these dates.
23

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Court issue an order granting the

24 Parties’ request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines as set forth
25 herein.
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
5:13-CV-00945-LHK

4

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Dated: April 30, 2013

3

SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
By:

/s/ Joseph P. Guglielmo
Joseph P. Guglielmo (admitted pro hac vice)
Donald A. Broggi (admitted pro hac vice)
Joseph D. Cohen (#155601)
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

16

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
Lionel Z. Glancy
Michael Goldberg
Robert V. Prongay
Casey E. Sadler
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

17

Counsel for Plaintiff

11
12
13
14
15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: April 30, 2013

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
By:
/s/ Teodora E. Manolova
Teodora E. Manolova (# 233333)
601 S. Figueroa St., 41st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
[e-mail]
Deborah S. Birnbach (pro hac vice pending)
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
5:13-CV-00945-LHK

5

1
2

ORDER
The stipulation set forth above is GRANTED with the exception of Paragraph 4. The

3

initial Case Management Conference scheduled for May 15, 2013 shall be CONTINUED to

4

September 18, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. If the parties wish to continue the Case Management

5

Conference again at that time, the parties may file a stipulation requesting a continuance.

6

DATED: May 8, 2013

7
8

Hon. Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
5:13-CV-00945-LHK

6