Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06421/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06421-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 06-6421-JSW

SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB NO. 126930) 

KALAMA M. LUI-KWAN (CSB NO. 242121) 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415/875-2300 

Facsimile: 415/281-1350 

smuck@fenwick.com; klui-kwan@fenwick.com

JAY L. POMERANTZ (CSB NO. 209869) 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

Silicon Valley Center 

801 California Street 

Mountain View, CA 94041 

Telephone: (650) 988-8500 

Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 

jpomerantz@fenwick.com; 

Attorneys for Individual Defendants Peter F. Van Camp, 

Keith D. Taylor, Sushil Kapoor, Marjorie S. Backaus, 

Renee F. Lanam, Peter T. Ferris, Brandi Galvin Morandi, 

Scott Kriens, Louis J. Lavigne, Jr., and Gary Hromadko, 

and Nominal Defendant Equinix, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

JOHN DROSKOKSKI, Derivatively on Behalf 

of EQUINIX, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PETER F. VAN CAMP, KEITH D. TAYLOR, 

SUSHIL KAPOOR, MARJORIE S. 

BACKAUS, RENEE F. LANAM, PETER T. 

FERRIS, BRANDI GALVIN MORANDI, 

PHILIP J. KOEN, SCOTT KRIENS, LOUIS J. 

LAVIGNE, JR., STEVEN T. CLONTZ, 

STEVEN P. ENG, and GARY HROMADKO, 

Defendants, 

- and - 

EQUINIX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C 06-6421-JSW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

Case 3:06-cv-06421-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 5
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 06-6421-JSW

This Stipulation is entered into by and among plaintiff John Droskokski (“Plaintiff”), 

individual defendants Peter F. Van Camp, Keith D. Taylor, Sushil Kapoor, Marjorie S. Backaus, 

Renee F. Lanam, Peter T. Ferris, Brandi Galvin Morandi, Scott Kriens, Louis J. Lavigne, Jr., and 

Gary Hromadko, and nominal defendant Equinix, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s order dated January 3, 2007 (“January 3, 2007 

Order”), Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s complaint (“Complaint”), and any motions to 

dismiss the Complaint, are due no later than March 5, 2007, and a briefing schedule was 

established for any such motions to dismiss; 

WHEREAS, nominal defendant Equinix, Inc. (“Equinix”) intends to move to dismiss the 

Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue on Equinix’s behalf because, among 

other things, Plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand on Equinix’s Board of Directors (“Equinix 

Standing Motion”); 

WHEREAS, the Court’s ruling on the Equinix Standing Motion will determine the 

threshold issue of Plaintiff’s standing to file and maintain a derivative lawsuit on behalf of 

Equinix; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Equinix, through their counsel, intend to meet to discuss the 

lawsuit and its possible resolution before the Equinix Standing Motion is filed; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the resources of the Court and the parties are best 

conserved, and the interests of judicial economy are best served, by deferring the filing of the 

responses to the Complaint, or any additional motions to dismiss the Complaint, until after the 

Court has decided the Equinix Standing Motion; 

WHEREAS, Equinix and Plaintiff believe that they will each require more than 15 pages, 

but no more than 25 pages, to brief fully the anticipated Equinix Standing Motion and opposition 

thereto; 

WHEREAS, the Court’s order dated October 13, 2006 (“October 13, 2006 Order”) set the 

initial case management conference in the above-captioned action (“Initial CMC”) for March 9, 

2007, and set certain deadlines related to the ADR Multi-Option Program; 

Case 3:06-cv-06421-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 5
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 

 

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 06-6421-JSW

2

WHEREAS, the parties believe that it is premature to engage in the ADR Multi-Option 

Program at this time, and will be prepared to discuss this item with the Court at the Initial CMC; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the resources of the Court and the parties are best 

conserved, and the interests of judicial economy are best served, by continuing the Initial CMC 

until the date of the hearing on the Equinix Standing Motion; and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff purports to have properly served all of the defendants named in this 

action except for Philip J. Koen, Steven T. Clontz, and Steven P. Eng, and Defendants dispute the 

propriety of the purported service on certain of the defendants named in this action; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Northern District of 

California Civil Local Rule 6-1, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, as 

follows: 

1. The Equinix Standing Motion. Equinix will file a motion to dismiss the Complaint 

on the ground that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue on Equinix’s behalf on or before April 19, 2007; 

Plaintiff will file his opposition to Equinix’s motion to dismiss on or before June 4, 2007; and 

Equinix will file its reply to Plaintiff’s opposition on or before July 3, 2007. The briefs in support 

of and opposition to the motion to dismiss may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and 

Equinix’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition may not exceed fifteen pages in length, exclusive of title 

pages, indices of cases, table of contents, exhibits, and summaries of argument, if required. 

2. Responses to the Complaint. Other than as set forth above in Section 1, Equinix 

and the individual defendants shall have no obligation to respond to or move to dismiss the 

Complaint at this time. Following the Court’s resolution of the Equinix Standing Motion, the 

parties shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for any necessary responses to or motions to 

dismiss the Complaint. 

3. Initial Case Management Conference. The initial case management conference, 

currently set for March 9, 2007, shall be continued to the same date as the hearing on Equinix’s 

Standing Motion, and the deadline for the parties to file a joint case management statement, 

consistent with the terms of the Court’s October 13, 2006 Order, shall be no later than five (5) 

court days prior to this conference. The deadlines in the Court’s October 13, 2006 Order 

Case 3:06-cv-06421-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 5
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 

 

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 06-6421-JSW

3

regarding the ADR Multi-Option Program are vacated and the parties shall be prepared to discuss 

this item at the initial Case Management Conference. 

4. By entering into this Stipulation, Defendants do not waive any right to challenge 

the sufficiency of the purported service on any of the defendants named in the above-captioned 

action. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local 

Rule 6-1, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, that the parties may enter into 

and submit a further appropriate stipulation amending this filing. 

Dated: February 16, 2007 FENWICK & WEST LLP 

By: /s/ 

 Jay L. Pomerantz 

Silicon Valley Center 

801 California Street 

Mountain View, CA 94041 

Telephone: (650) 988-8500 

Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 

Attorneys for Defendants Peter F. Van Camp, 

Keith D. Taylor, Sushil Kapoor, Marjorie S. 

Backaus, Renee F. Lanam, Peter T. Ferris, 

Brandi Galvin Morandi, Scott Kriens, Louis J. 

Lavigne, Jr., and Gary Hromadko, and 

Nominal Defendant Equinix, Inc. 

Dated: February 16, 2007 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 

By: /s/ 

 Travis E. Downs, III 

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 231-1058 

Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Droskokski 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I 

attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained 

from Travis E. Downs, III. 

// 

// 

Case 3:06-cv-06421-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/22/07 Page 4 of 5
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 

 

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 06-6421-JSW

4

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________ 2007 

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

 United States District Court Judge 

25346/00402/LIT/1263208.2 

 The Standing Motion shall be noticed for hearing on July 27, 2007. February 20,

Case 3:06-cv-06421-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/22/07 Page 5 of 5