Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02233/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02233-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ADR

CERTIFICATION DEADLINES; 

C-05-02233 CRB 

2804983_1.DOC 

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838 

STEVEN D. GUGGENHEIM, State Bar No. 201386 

CAZ HASHEMI, State Bar No. 210239 

CAMERON P. HOFFMAN, State Bar No. 229316 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: choffman@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MICHAEL KLAYKO, SETH NEIMAN, 

NEAL DEMPSEY, CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY, 

DAVID HOUSE, NICHOLAS MOORE, L. 

WILLIAM KRAUSE, SANJAY VASWANI, 

ROBERT WALKER AND BROCADE 

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IN RE BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS 

SYSTEMS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C05-02233 CRB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING ADR 

CERTIFICATION DEADLINES 

Case 3:05-cv-02233-CRB Document 83 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ADR

CERTIFICATION DEADLINES; 

C-05-02233 CRB 

-1- 2804983_1.DOC 

WHEREAS, by Order entered on November 14, 2005 upon stipulation of the parties, the 

Court continued the ADR certification deadlines in this action to January 20, 2006; 

WHEREAS, on January 6, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the 

Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend within 60 days; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that compliance with the ADR Certification requirements 

prior to the filing of any amended complaint would be premature; 

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

subject to approval of the Court, that the ADR Certification deadlines should be continued until 

after the filing of any amended complaint. 

Dated: January 20, 2006 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER 

& FLOM LLP 

 ______ /s/ Jack DiCanio _ Jack DiCanio 

Attorneys for Defendant Gregory L. Reyes 

Dated: January 20, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 

 ______/s/ Cameron P. Hoffman 

Cameron P. Hoffman 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Michael Klayko, Seth Neiman, Neal Dempsey, 

Christopher Paisley, David House, Nicholas Moore, L. 

William Krause, Sanjay Vaswani, Robert Walker and 

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. 

Dated: January 20, 2006 FARUQI &FARUQI, LLP 

 _______/s/ Adam Gonnelli 

Adam Gonnelli 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:05-cv-02233-CRB Document 83 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ADR

CERTIFICATION DEADLINES; 

C-05-02233 CRB 

-2- 2804983_1.DOC 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the ADR Certification 

deadlines are continued until such time as they are re-imposed by the Court following the filing 

of any amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ 

 _______________________________ 

THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

January 23, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-02233-CRB Document 83 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 3