Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05208/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05208-0/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 

MP1:987221.2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C 06 05208 MHP 

GEORGE A. RILEY (State Bar No. 118304) griley@omm.com

LUANN L. SIMMONS (State Bar No. 203526) lsimmons@omm.com

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

DAVID M. FURBUSH (State Bar No. 83447) dfurbush@omm.com

DALE M. EDMONDSON (State Bar No. 189793) dedmondson@omm.com

ROBERTA L. HARTING (State Bar No. 225067) rharting@omm.com

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

2765 Sand Hill Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 473-2600 

Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 

Attorneys for Defendant 

APPLE COMPUTER, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO 

MARTIN VOGEL and KENNETH 

MAHONEY, On Behalf Of Themselves 

and All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STEVEN P. JOBS, PETER 

OPPENHEIMER, FRED ANDERSON, 

WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, 

MILLARD S. DREXLER, ALBERT 

GORE, JR., ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, 

JEROME P. YORK and APPLE 

COMPUTER, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 06 05208 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT 

Complaint Filed: August 24, 2006 

Jury Trial Demanded 

Case 3:06-cv-05208-MHP Document 6 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 5:06-cv-05208-JF Document 10 Filed 10/27/06 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 

- 2 - 

MP1:987221.2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C 06 05208 MHP 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1, the parties stipulate, and the Court hereby orders, as 

follows: 

1. Defendants are not required to respond to the complaint in this action or any action 

consolidated into this action, other than a consolidated complaint or a complaint 

designated as the operative complaint by Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel. 

2. Defendants shall respond to the consolidated complaint within forty-five (45) days 

after service (or, in the event that Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel designates an existing 

complaint as the operative complaint, within forty-five (45) days after service of 

written notice of such designation), unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties or 

ordered by the Court. 

Dated: October 26 , 2006 

STULL, STULL & BRODY 

By: /s/ Patrice L. Bishop 

 Patrice L. Bishop 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Martin Vogel and Kenneth Mahoney, On 

Behalf Of Themselves and All Others 

Similarly Situated 

Dated: October 26 , 2006 

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

By: /s/ David M. Furbush 

 David M. Furbush 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Apple Computer, Inc. 

Case 3:06-cv-05208-MHP Document 6 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 5:06-cv-05208-JF Document 10 Filed 10/27/06 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 

- 3 - 

MP1:987221.2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C 06 05208 MHP 

O R D E R

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October , 2006 

 Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05208-MHP Document 6 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 3 of 3

 27

Case 5:06-cv-05208-JF Document 10 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 3