Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05642/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05642-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS; CASE NO. 

C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MO2\2911130_1.DOC 

TERRY T. JOHNSON, State Bar No. 121569 

STEVEN D. GUGGENHEIM, State Bar No. 201386 

KRISTIN A. DILLEHAY, State Bar No. 187257 

CAMERON P. HOFFMAN, State Bar No. 229316 

MARK T. OAKES, State Bar No. 234598 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: moakes@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for the Redback Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE: 

REDBACK NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION. 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS 

**E-filed 7/7/06**

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 231 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS; CASE NO. 

C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-1- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MO2\2911130_1.DOC 

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2006, the Court entered an Order dismissing plaintiffs’ third 

amended consolidated complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend (the “Order”); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order, plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint 

for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) was filed on May 19, 2006; 

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2006 the Court entered an Order pursuant to which defendants’ 

motions to dismiss the Complaint are due to be filed on July 7, 2006, plaintiffs’ oppositions to 

any motions to dismiss the Complaint are due to be filed on August 4, 2006, and defendants’ 

replies in further support of their motions to dismiss the Complaint are due to be filed on August 

25, 2006; 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to amend the briefing schedule, without altering the 

hearing date; 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) provides for a twenty-five (25) page limit on any 

motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities filed in this action; 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) provides for a twenty-five (25) page limit on any 

opposition to any motion filed in this action; 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-3(c) provides for a fifteen (15) page limit on any reply 

memorandum of points and authorities in further support of any motion filed in this action; 

WHEREAS, in order to promote the interests of judicial efficiency, defendants Kevin 

DeNuccio, Pierre Lamond, Thomas Cronan, Vinod Khosla, Dennis Wolf, Vivek Ragavan, 

Dennis Barsema, Gaurav Garg, William Kurtz, Craig Gentner, Promod Haque and Randall 

Kruep (collectively, the “Redback Defendants”) intend to file a joint motion to dismiss the 

Complaint; 

WHEREAS, given the complexity of the Complaint, as well as the complexity of the law 

governing the allegations in the Complaint, and given that each of the Redback Defendants 

would be entitled to file a separate, twenty-five (25) page motion to dismiss and supporting 

memorandum of points and authorities, and a separate fifteen (15) page reply memorandum of 

points and authorities pursuant to the Local Rules, the Redback Defendants believe it is 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 231 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS; CASE NO. 

C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-2- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MO2\2911130_1.DOC 

appropriate to permit them to file a joint motion and supporting memoranda of points and 

authorities in excess of the twenty-five (25) and fifteen (15) page limits provided by the Local 

Rules; 

WHEREAS, the Redback Defendants believe that they will need no more than thirty-five 

(35) pages for their memorandum of points and authorities in support of their joint motion to 

dismiss, and no more than a twenty (20) pages for their reply memorandum of points and 

authorities in further support of their motion to dismiss; and 

WHEREAS, plaintiffs are not opposed to the page limits proposed by the Redback 

Defendants. 

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

subject to approval of the Court, that: 

1. The Redback Defendants shall have until and including July 10, 2006 to serve and 

file any motions to dismiss the Complaint. 

2. Plaintiffs shall have until and including August 7, 2006 to serve and file any 

oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss. 

 3. Defendants shall have until and including August 25, 2006 to serve and file any 

replies in support of their motions to dismiss. 

 4. The case management conference and the hearing on defendants’ motion to 

dismiss shall remain set for September 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

5. The Redback Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of 

their joint motion to dismiss the Complaint may exceed the twenty-five (25) page limit imposed 

by Civil Local Rule 7-2(b), but may not exceed a total of thirty-five (35) pages, exclusive of the 

caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

6. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Redback Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the 

Complaint may exceed the twenty-five page limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), but may 

not exceed a total of thirty-five (35) pages, exclusive of caption page, table of contents, table of 

authorities, declarations and exhibits. Plaintiffs may separately file an opposition to any motion 

to dismiss filed by any other defendant (such as PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) and those page 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 231 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS; CASE NO. 

C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-3- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MO2\2911130_1.DOC 

limits will not count toward the 35 page limit discussed herein; alternatively, Plaintiffs may file 

one omnibus brief in opposition to all motions to dismiss, and such opposition shall be no more 

than the combined total of the pages (exclusive of caption page, tables of contents and 

authorities, declarations and exhibits) of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. 

7. The Redback Defendants’ reply memorandum of points and authorities in further 

support of their joint motion to dismiss the operative complaint may exceed the fifteen (15) page 

limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), but may not exceed a total of twenty (20) pages, 

exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

Dated: July 6, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Mark T. Oakes 

Terry T. Johnson 

Steven D. Guggenheim 

Kristin A. Dillehay 

Cameron P. Hoffman 

Mark T. Oakes 

Attorneys for the Redback Defendants 

Dated: July 6, 2006 GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 

By: /s/ John C. Kairis 

Stuart M. Grant 

John C. Kairis 

Kimberly L. Wierzel 

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 231 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS; CASE NO. 

C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-4- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MO2\2911130_1.DOC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing: 

1. The Redback Defendants shall have until and including July 10, 2006 to serve and 

file any motions to dismiss the Complaint. 

2. Plaintiffs shall have until and including August 7, 2006 to serve and file any 

oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss. 

 3. Defendants shall have until and including August 25, 2006 to serve and file any 

replies in support of their motions to dismiss. 

 4. The case management conference and the hearing on defendants’ motions to 

dismiss shall remain set for September 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

5. The Redback Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of 

their joint motion to dismiss the Complaint may exceed the twenty-five (25) page limit imposed 

by Civil Local Rule 7-2(b), but may not exceed a total of thirty-five (35) pages, exclusive of the 

caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

6. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Redback Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the 

Complaint may exceed the twenty-five page limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), but may 

not exceed a total of thirty-five (35) pages, exclusive of caption page, table of contents, table of 

authorities, declarations and exhibits. Plaintiffs may separately file an opposition to any motion 

to dismiss filed by any other defendant (such as PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) and those page 

limits will not count toward the 35 page limit discussed herein. 

7. The Redback Defendants’ reply memorandum of points and authorities in further 

support of their joint motion to dismiss the operative complaint may exceed the fifteen (15) page 

limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), but may not exceed a total of twenty (20) pages, 

exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ _______________________________ 

THE HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge 

7/7/06

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 231 Filed 07/07/06 Page 5 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS; CASE NO. 

C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-5- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MO2\2911130_1.DOC 

 I, Mark T. Oakes, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to 

file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Page Limits. In compliance with General 

Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that John Kairis has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: July 6, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Mark T. Oakes 

Mark T. Oakes 

Attorneys for the Redback Defendants 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 231 Filed 07/07/06 Page 6 of 6