Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02660/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02660-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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 [PROPOSED] ORDER

SHORTENING TIME 

Counsel listed on next page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

DAVID HALTERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

LEGATO SOFTWARE, a Division of EMC 

Corporation; EMC CORPORATION, dba 

EMC PERIPHERALS, INC., and DOES 1-X, 

Defendants.

Case No. C04-2660 JW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO 

HEAR EMC CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S 

SUBPOENA TO THIRD-PARTY 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 

CIV. L.R. 6-2(a) 

XXXXXXXXXXX

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 84 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 5
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 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

SHORTENING TIME 

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON (State Bar No. 70636) 

DICKSON – ROSS LLP 

1970 Broadway, Suite 1045 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 268-1999 

Facsimile: (510) 268-3627 

DAVID ANGLE (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

ANGLE & ANGLE LLC 

1920 13th Street, Suite C 

Boulder, Colorado 80302 

Telephone: (303) 443-2200 

Facsimile: (303) 443-2229 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

David Halterman 

GARY R. SINISCALCO (State Bar No. 64770) 

MICHAEL D. WEIL (State Bar No. 209056) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

The Orrick Building 

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2669 

Telephone: 415-773-5700 

Facsimile: 415-773-5759 

LYNNE C. HERMLE (State Bar No. 99779) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025-1021 

Telephone: 650-614-7400 

Facsimile: 650-614-7401 

LEANNE FITZGERALD (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

EMC CORPORATION 

2350 West El Camino Real 

Mountain View, CA 94040 

Attorneys for Defendant 

EMC Corporation 

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 84 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 5
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 [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING

TIME FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2(a), Plaintiff David Halterman and Defendant 

EMC Corporation (collectively, “the parties”) stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, on August 12, 2005, plaintiff Halterman served on third-party 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) a subpoena to produce records relating to PwC’s audits of 

Legato Systems, Inc. (“Legato”) for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff’s subpoena, attached hereto as Exhibit A, requests 

production of records by August 29, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the parties’ counsel met and conferred regarding the subpoena, but 

could not come to a resolution; 

WHEREAS, EMC Corporation filed, or will file, a motion to quash the subpoena 

on Friday, August 19, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the Court’s October 26, 2005 Scheduling Order and August 15, 2005 

order set the discovery cut-off for non-expert discovery on September 14, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the parties have scheduled other discovery related matters that would 

interfere with having a hearing on a Tuesday between this date and September 14, 2005;

WHEREAS, if the Court denies EMC’s motion and PwC produces the requested 

information, plaintiff may want to provide this information to his accounting expert(s) to include 

in a supplemental expert report or mark as an exhibit during the deposition of EMC’s expert; 

 WHEREAS, the parties have scheduled plaintiff’s accounting experts for 

deposition in Los Angeles on September 13 and 14, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the parties have scheduled EMC’s expert’s deposition on September 

21, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the Court’s October 26, 2004 Scheduling Order also provides, at 

paragraph 9, that “an expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or 

opinions not disclosed prior to the expert’s deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material 

upon which an expert opinion may be based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the 

expert deposition.” 

WHEREAS, EMC will not waive its right, under paragraph 9, to object to 

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 84 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 5
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 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

SHORTENING TIME 

plaintiff’s expert relying on any factual material, including the requested PwC documents, after 

EMC takes the deposition of plaintiff’s expert(s);

WHEREAS, the last day to file a motion to exclude expert testimony is October 

10, 2005 for a hearing on November 14, 2005, pursuant to the Court’s August 15, 2005 order; 

WHEREAS, Lynne Hermle, one of EMC’s counsel, and Kathy Dickson, one of 

plaintiff’s counsel, are both engaged in the same litigation, unrelated to this case, and have an 

estimated three week trial set for late September 2005 in the Superior Court for the County of San 

Mateo; 

 WHEREAS, EMC wishes to have a hearing set before the date set for production 

of PwC’s documents and plaintiff wants to resolve EMC’s motion on an expedited basis given the 

foregoing;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through 

their designated counsel as follows: 

1. the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order shortening 

time for a hearing on EMC’s motion to quash plaintiff’s August 12, 2005 subpoena served on 

PwC, as follows: 

(a) plaintiff’s opposition to EMC’s motion to quash shall be filed on or 

before August 26, 2005; 

(b) EMC’s reply shall be filed on or before August 31, 2005; and 

(c) EMC’s motion to quash shall be heard on September 2, 2005 at 

10:00 a.m. in Department 5. 

2. The date for production of the documents requested from PwC pursuant to 

plaintiff’s subpoena shall be extended until seven calendar days after the Court enters an order 

regarding EMC’s motion to quash. 

//

//

//

//

noon on

 noon on August 29

XXXXXXX

August 30, 

XXXXXXXX

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 84 Filed 08/22/05 Page 4 of 5
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 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

SHORTENING TIME 

3. EMC shall provide PwC a copy of this Order. 

Dated: August 19, 2005 Respectfully submitted, 

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON 

DICKSON – ROSS LLP 

DAVID ANGLE 

ANGLE & ANGLE LLC 

By: /s/ 

Kathryn Burkett Dickson 

Attorneys for Plaintiff David Halterman 

Dated: August 19, 2005 GARY R. SINISCALCO 

LYNNE C. HERMLE 

MICHAEL D. WEIL 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

LEANNE FITZGERALD 

EMC CORPORATION 

By: /s/ 

Michael D. Weil 

Attorneys for Defendant EMC Corporation 

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 

“conformed” signature (/s/) within this efiled document. 

By: /s/ _______

Michael D. Weil 

Attorneys for Defendant EMC Corporation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated:

_____________________________________

The Honorable Patricia Trumbull 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 , as modified by the court.

8/22/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 84 Filed 08/22/05 Page 5 of 5