Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02233/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02233-9/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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [C-05-2233 CRB]

2768521_1.DOC 

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838 

STEVEN D. GUGGENHEIM, State Bar No. 201386 

CAZ HASHEMI, State Bar No. 210239 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: chashemi@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant 

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS 

SYSTEMS, INC. and Defendants 

ANTONIO CANOVA, NEAL DEMPSEY, 

DAVID L. HOUSE, MICHAEL KLAYKO, L. 

WILLIAM KRAUSE, NICHOLAS G. MOORE, 

SETH D. NEIMAN, CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY, 

SANJAY VASWANI, and ROBERT WALKER 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING 

DISCOVERY 

Date: January 6, 2006 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Before: Hon. Charles R. Breyer 

Case 3:05-cv-02233-CRB Document 80 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [C-05-2233 CRB]

2768521_1.DOC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Nominal Defendant Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and defendants Antonio 

Canova, Neal Dempsey, David L. House, Michael Klayko, L. William Krause, Nicholas G. 

Moore, Seth D. Neiman, Christopher Paisley, Sanjay Vaswani, and Robert Walker (collectively 

“Defendants”) have moved this Court, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, for a protective order staying discovery,. 

The Court, having considered the briefs and other documents in support of and in 

opposition to the motion, having heard the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in this 

matter finds as follows: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order Staying 

Discovery is GRANTED. All discovery and initial disclosures are stayed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________________ By:__________________________________ 

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer 

United States District Judge 

January 06, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

APPROVED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-02233-CRB Document 80 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2