Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00283/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00283-6/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re VERITAS SOFTWARE

CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

___________________________________

This Document Relates to ALL ACTIONS

 /

Master File No. C-03-0283 MMC

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

ON MICHAEL MALONE’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 248)

Before the Court is the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses filed December 14,

2005 by class member Michael Malone (“Malone”), and noticed for hearing February 10,

2006. 

As lead plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond to the new arguments set

forth in Malone’s reply with respect to the timeliness of his motion, the Court will afford lead

plaintiffs the opportunity to file a surreply addressing such arguments. Lead plaintiffs’

surreply shall be filed no later than February 8, 2006.

In the event that the Court finds Malone’s motion is not time-barred, the Court may

need to review the time sheets of Malone’s counsel that itemize the hours spent on the

instant matter. Additionally, the Court notes that Malone has failed to comply with the

requirements of Civil Local Rule 54-6. In particular, Malone has not submitted: (1) a

declaration that counsel have met and conferred to resolve the instant dispute; and (2) a

Case 3:03-cv-00283-MMC Document 257 Filed 02/01/06 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

1

 If appropriate, after reviewing the parties’ supplemental submissions, the Court will

afford lead plaintiffs an opportunity to submit further briefing to address the reasonableness

of the fees sought by Malone’s counsel.

2

declaration containing “a brief description of the relevant qualifications and experience and

a statement of the customary hourly rates of each [attorney] or of comparable prevailing

hourly rates or other indication of value of the services.” See Civil L.R. 54-6(b). Malone

shall file such supplemental briefing no later than February 8, 2006.1

In light of the need for supplemental briefing, the Court hereby VACATES the

February 10, 2006 hearing on Malone’s motion. The Court will reschedule the hearing, if

necessary, after reviewing the parties’ supplemental submissions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00283-MMC Document 257 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2