Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03476/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03476-11/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 

PAUL T. FRIEDMAN (CA SBN 98381)

PFriedman@mofo.com 

PHILIP T. BESIROF (CA SBN 185053) 

PBesirof@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ANDREW M. MILLER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MARK NATHANSON, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

POLYCOM, INC., ANDREW M. MILLER, 

MICHAEL R. KOUREY, and ERIC F. 

BROWN, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 

CLASS ACTION 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

ENLARGING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS’ 

REPLY BRIEFS 

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 94 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 6
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, plaintiff Mark Nathanson 

(“Lead Plaintiff”) and defendants Polycom, Inc., Michael R. Kourey, Eric F. Brown, and 

Andrew M. Miller (“Defendants”) respectfully request that the Court adopt the parties’ stipulation 

below as the order of the Court, which extends the time for Defendants to file their reply briefs 

from October 2 to October 9, 2015. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION 

In support of this stipulation, the undersigned parties provide the following facts, which 

are verified in the supporting Declaration of Philip T. Besirof: 

1. On February 24, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint for 

Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “First Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 47); 

2. On April 25, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint 

(ECF Nos. 51, 53); 

3. On April 3, 2015, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’ 

motions to dismiss (ECF No. 72), providing Lead Plaintiff until May 4, 2015, to amend his 

complaint; 

4. On May 4, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint 

(ECF No. 79); 

5. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were due on June 26, 2015; 

Lead Plaintiff’s opposition brief was due on August 28, 2015; and Defendants’ reply briefs are 

due on October 2, 2015 (ECF No. 84) (“Scheduling Order”);

6. On June 26, 2015, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 85, 86); 

7. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed opposition (ECF No. 92);

8. Due to unexpected scheduling conflicts for Mr. Miller’s counsel, the parties have 

agreed to extend the due date for Defendants’ reply briefs by one week to Friday, 

October 9, 2015; and

9. Other than the briefing schedule for Defendants’ reply briefs, the proposed 

extension will not impact any other deadlines or dates set by the Court, including the hearing date 

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 94 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 6
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 2

set for October 23, 2015. 

STIPULATION 

In light of these facts, the undersigned parties jointly request that the Court modify the 

briefing schedule for Defendants’ motions to dismiss currently set forth in the Scheduling Order 

as follows: Defendants shall file their reply brief(s) in support of their motions to dismiss no later 

than October 9, 2015. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof

 Philip T. Besirof 

Paul T. Friedman 

Philip T. Besirof 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Email: PFriedman@mofo.com 

Email: PBesirof@mofo.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller 

Dated: October 1, 2015 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Keith E. Eggleton

 Keith E. Eggleton 

Keith E. Eggleton 

Rodney G. Strickland 

Luke A. Liss 

Philip K. Rucker 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 

Email: keggleton@wsgr.com 

Email: rstrickland@wsgr.com 

Email: lliss@wsgr.com 

Email: prucker@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Polycom, Inc., 

Michael R. Kourey, and Eric F. Brown 

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 94 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 6
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 3

Dated: October 1, 2015 POMERANTZ LLP

By: /s/ Jeremy A. Lieberman

 Jeremy A. Lieberman 

JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN 

EMMA GILMORE 

600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor 

New York, New York 10016 

Telephone: (212) 661-1100 

Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 

Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com 

Email: egilmore@pomlaw.com 

PATRICK V. DAHLSTROM 

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: (312) 377-1181 

Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 

Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com 

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Mark Nathanson

ECF ATTESTATION 

 I, Philip Besirof, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file 

this motion. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Rodney G. 

Strickland and Jeremy A. Lieberman have concurred in this filing. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof 

 Philip T. Besirof 

Paul T. Friedman 

Philip T. Besirof 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Email: PFriedman@mofo.com 

Email: PBesirof@mofo.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 94 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 6
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 4

DECLARATION OF PHILIP T. BESIROF 

I, PHILIP T. BESIROF, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted 

to practice before this Court. I am a member of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, and 

counsel of record for defendant Andrew Miller. I submit this Declaration in support of the 

parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (hereafter, the “Stipulation”). If called as a 

witness, I would testify to the facts listed below. 

2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, I attest that the facts set forth in the Stipulation, 

paragraphs 1 through 8 inclusive, are all true and accurate. 

3. This is the parties’ tenth request for a modification of time and the third with 

respect to the Second Amended Complaint. The parties previously filed stipulations to extend the 

time to respond to previously operative complaints on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17) and 

December 30, 2013 (ECF No. 45). These stipulations were approved by the Court (see ECF Nos. 

18, 46). Additionally, the parties filed six stipulated requests to continue the Initial Case 

Management Conference; these were filed on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17), December 9, 

2013 (ECF No. 36), April 4, 2014 (ECF No. 49), November 21, 2014 (ECF No. 64), January 2, 

2015 (ECF No. 66), and February 6, 2015 (ECF No. 69). The Court granted these six previous 

requests (see ECF Nos. 18, 39, 50, 65, 67, 68, 70). Finally, the parties filed two stipulations to 

extend the time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2015 and June 17, 2015 

(ECF Nos. 80, 83), which were granted on May 5, 2015 and June 18, 2015, respectively 

(ECF Nos. 82, 84). 

4. Other than the reply briefing scheduling for the motions to dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint, the proposed schedule will not impact any other deadlines or dates set by 

the Court. 

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 94 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 6
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 5

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed in San Francisco, California, 

on this 1st day of October, 2015. 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof

 Philip T. Besirof 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __________________________ 

THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI 

 United States District Judge 

10/02/2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 94 Filed 10/02/15 Page 6 of 6