Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00271/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00271-0/pdf.json

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

---

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

STIP EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL DEFS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CV 08 0271 CRB 

SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB NO. 126930) 

DEAN S. KRISTY (CSB NO. 157646) 

CATHERINE DUDEN KEVANE (CSB NO. 215501) 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

555 California Street, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 875-2300 

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 

smuck@fenwick.com 

dkristy@fenwick.com 

ckevane@fenwick.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Shoretel, Inc.; John W. Combs; Michael E. Healy; Edwin J. 

Basart; Gary J. Daichendt; Thomas Van Overbeek; Kenneth 

D. Denman; Charles D. Kissner; and Edward F. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WILLIAM WATKINS, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHORETEL, INC.; JOHN W. COMBS; 

MICHAEL E. HEALY; EDWIN J. BASART; 

GARY J. DAICHENDT; THOMAS VAN 

OVERBEEK; KENNETH D. DENMAN; 

CHARLES D. KISSNER; EDWARD F. 

THOMPSON; LEHMAN BROTHERS, INC.; 

J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.; AND 

PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV 08 0271 CRB 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME 

FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS, the above-captioned action is alleged to be class actions asserting violations 

of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77o) against 

Defendants Shoretel, Inc., John W. Combs, Michael E. Healy, Edwin J. Basart, Gary J. 

Daichendt, Thomas Van Overbeek, Kenneth D. Denman, Charles D. Kissner, Edward F. 

Thompson, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Piper Jaffray & Co. 

Case 3:08-cv-00271-CRB Document 9 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 3
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

 2 

STIP EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL DEFS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CV 08 0271 CRB 

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”); 

WHEREAS, the above-captioned action is subject to the requirements of the Private 

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (1995) (the “Reform 

Act”), which sets forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities class actions; 

WHEREAS, the Reform Act provides for the appointment of a lead plaintiff to act on 

behalf of the purported class, and further provides that the appointment of lead plaintiff shall not 

be made until after a decision on a motion to consolidate is rendered (15 U.S.C. 77z1(a)(3)(B)(ii)); 

WHEREAS, a motion to consolidate and for appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead 

counsel will be filed in the above-captioned action; 

WHEREAS, Defendants intend to file motions to dismiss the claims asserted against 

them; and 

WHEREAS, because the special procedures specified in the Reform Act contemplate (i) 

the consolidation of similar actions, (ii) appointment of lead plaintiff and (iii) the filing of a single 

consolidated complaint by lead plaintiff and counsel to be appointed by the Court, requiring 

Defendants to respond to the initial complaint in the above-captioned action would serve no 

purpose and would result in the needless expenditure of private and judicial resources; 

IT IS ACCORDINGLY STIPULATED, pursuant to Northern District of California Local 

Rule 6-1(a), by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties in this action, that the time 

for each Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint in the above-captioned 

action is extended until following the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff’s 

Counsel and that, thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a mutually agreeable 

schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint (or designation of an operative complaint), if 

necessary, as well as for the briefing and hearing of responses thereto. The consolidated or 

operative complaint shall supersede all complaints filed in any action that is consolidated herein. 

Case 3:08-cv-00271-CRB Document 9 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 3
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

 3 

STIP EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL DEFS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CV 08 0271 CRB 

Dated: February 4, 2008 FENWICK & WEST LLP 

By: /s/ Catherine D. Kevane 

Catherine D. Kevane 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Shoretel, Inc.; John W. Combs; Michael E. 

Healy; Edwin J. Basart; Gary J. Daichendt; 

Thomas Van Overbeek; Kenneth D. Denman; 

Charles D. Kissner; and Edward F. Thompson 

 I, Catherine D. Kevane, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file 

this STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that each of the two 

signatories identified below has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: February 4, 2008 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

By: /s/ Reed R. Kathrein 

Reed R. Kathrein 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: February 4, 2008 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 

By: /s/ Charlene S. Shimada 

Charlene S. Shimada 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities 

Inc. and Piper Jaffray & Co. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Feb. 11, 2008

Case 3:08-cv-00271-CRB Document 9 Filed 02/11/08 Page 3 of 3