Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02388/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 [] ORDER 

JOHN H. HEMANN (State Bar No. 165823) 

JOSEPH E. FLOREN (State Bar No. 168292) 

JONATHAN M. DEGOOYER (State Bar No. 221007) 

LAURA A. LEE (State Bar No. 246032) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: 415.442.1000 

Facsimile: 415.442.1001 

E-mail: jhemann@morganlewis.com 

 jfloren@morganlewis.com 

 jdegooyer@morganlewis.com 

 llee@morganlewis.com 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION 

YENNA WU, Derivatively on Behalf of 

Nominal Defendant EXTREME 

NETWORKS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GORDON L. STITT, et al., 

 Defendants, 

and 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-07-02268-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] 

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES FOR 

ALL PURPOSES AND ESTABLISHING 

PLEADING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

*E-FILED - 8/2/07*

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH: 

LINDA ERIKSON, Derivatively on Behalf 

of Nominal Defendant EXTREME 

NETWORKS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GORDON L. STITT, et al., 

 Defendants, 

and 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-07-02388-RMW 

FRANK A. GRUCEL, JR., Derivatively on 

Behalf of Nominal Defendant EXTREME 

NETWORKS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GORDON L. STITT, et al., 

 Defendants, 

and 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-07-02848-RMW 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

 Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate and agree, by and through their undersigned 

counsel of record, as follows: 

WHEREAS, there are three derivative actions pending in the Northern District of 

California against nominal defendant Extreme Networks, Inc., as well as some or all of the 

individual defendants named in this action, captioned as follows: 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

Case Name Case No. Filing Date

Wu v. Stitt, et al. C-07-02268-RMW April 25, 20071

Erikson v. Stitt, et al. C-07-02388-RMW May 2, 2007 

Grucel v. Stitt, et al. C-07-02848-RMW May 31, 2007 

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2007, each of the above-listed actions was ordered related and 

assigned to the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte; 

 WHEREAS, the above-listed actions arise out of the same transactions and occurrences 

and involve the same or substantially similar issues of law and fact, and therefore, meet the 

criteria for consolidation for all purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); 

WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007, counsel for the parties to the Wu and Erikson actions filed 

a stipulation to consolidate the Wu and Erikson actions, upon which the Court deferred action on 

June 1, 2007; 

WHEREAS, on June 8, 2007, counsel for plaintiff Grucel filed a motion to consolidate all 

three of the above-listed actions and to appoint Grucel as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead 

counsel in the consolidated action, the hearing for which has been set for July 27, 2007 at 9:00 

a.m.; 

WHEREAS, on July 6, 2007, nominal defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. filed a Statement 

of Non-Opposition to plaintiff Grucel’s June 8, 2007 motion to consolidate all three of the abovelisted actions and to appoint Grucel as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel in the 

consolidated action, stating its agreement that the above-listed actions should be consolidated and 

taking no position regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel; and, 

WHEREAS, all plaintiffs and all defendants who have been served and/or appeared in the 

above-listed actions, by and through undersigned counsel (“Defendants”) agree to consolidation 

of the above-listed cases for all purposes; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 

the undersigned counsel for all parties, as follows: 

 

1

 Plaintiff Wu filed an amended complaint on June 15, 2007. 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

 4 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

1. The following actions are consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial 

proceedings, trial, and appeal: 

Case Name Case No. Filing Date

Wu v. Stitt, et al. C-07-02268-RMW April 25, 2007 

Erikson v. Stitt, et al. C-07-02388-RMW May 2, 2007 

Grucel v. Stitt, et al. C-07-02848-RMW May 31, 2007 

 2. The caption of these consolidated actions shall be “In re Extreme Networks, Inc. 

Shareholder Derivative Litigation” and the files of these consolidated actions shall be maintained 

in one file under Master File No. C-07-2268-RMW. Any other actions now pending or later filed 

in this Court which arise out of or are related to the same facts alleged in the above-listed actions 

shall be consolidated for all purposes, if and when they are brought to the Court’s attention. 

 3. All pleadings filed in the consolidated actions, or in any separate action included 

herein, shall bear the following caption: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

In re EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. 

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

Case No. C-07-02268-RMW 

 4. When a pleading is intended to be applicable to all actions governed by this Order, 

the words “All Actions” shall appear after the words “This Document Relates To:” in the abovecaption. When a pleading is to be applicable to only some, but not all, of the consolidated 

actions, this Court’s docket number for each individual action to which the pleading is intended to 

be applicable and the abbreviated case name of said action shall appear after the words “This 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

 5 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

Document Relates To:” in the above-caption. 

 5. A Master Docket and a Master File are established for the above-listed 

consolidated actions and for all other related actions filed or transferred to this Court. Separate 

dockets shall continue to be maintained for each of the individual actions hereby consolidated, 

and entries shall be made in the docket of each individual case in accordance with the regular 

procedures of the clerk of this Court, except as modified by this Order. 

 6. When a pleading is filed and the caption shows that it is applicable to “All 

Actions,” the clerk shall file such a pleading in the Master File and note such filing in the Master 

Docket. No further copies need be filed, and no other docket entries need be made. 

 7. When a pleading is filed and the caption shows that it is to be applicable to fewer 

than all of the consolidated actions, the clerk will file such pleading in the Master File only, but 

shall docket such filing on the Master Docket and the docket of each applicable action. 

 8. If and when a case which properly belongs as part of In re Extreme Networks, Inc. 

Shareholder Derivative Litigation is filed in or transferred to this Court, the clerk of this Court 

shall: 

 (a) Place a copy of this Order in the separate file for such action; 

 (b) Make to the attorneys for the plaintiff(s) in the newly-filed or transferred 

case a copy of this Order and direct that this Order be served upon or mailed to any new 

defendant(s) or their counsel in the newly-filed or transferred case; and, 

 (c) Make an appropriate entry on the Master Docket. This Court requests the 

assistance of counsel in calling to the attention of the clerk of this Court the filing or transfer or 

any case which properly might be consolidated as part of In re Extreme Networks, Inc. 

Shareholder Derivative Litigation.

 9. This Stipulation and Order shall have no effect on the appointment of lead plaintiff 

and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the consolidated action, which will be determined separately. 

 10. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from the entry of the Court’s Order 

appointing lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel in the consolidated action to file a Consolidated 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

 6 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

Complaint, which will supersede all existing complaints filed in these actions. Defendants need 

not respond to any of the complaints currently on file. Service, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, of any of the pre-existing complaints on any of the defendants, or their 

counsel, shall constitute sufficient service on that defendant. Plaintiffs shall serve the 

Consolidated Complaint on counsel for Defendants, who shall return waivers of service on behalf 

of each individual defendant. 

 10. Each defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint 

no later than forty-five (45) days after the date of filing. In the event that defendants file and 

serve any motion directed at the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs shall file and serve their 

opposition no later than forty-five (45) days after service of defendants’ motion. If defendants 

file and serve a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, they will do so no later than twenty (20) days after 

service of the opposition. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 10, 2007 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

JOHN H. HEMANN 

JOSEPH E. FLOREN 

JONATHAN M. DEGOOYER 

LAURA A. LEE 

By:_______/s/ Joseph E. Floren___________ 

Joseph E. Floren 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Telephone: (415) 442-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 

Attorneys For Nominal Defendant Extreme 

Networks, Inc. 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

 7 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

Dated: July 10, 2007 SCHIFFRIN, BARROWAY, TOPAZ & 

KESSLER, LLP

ALAN R. PLUTZIK 

ROBERT M. BRAMSON 

L. TIMOTHY FISHER 

By:_______/s/ Alan R. Plutzik____________ Alan R. Plutzik 

2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 

Telephone: (925) 945-0770 

Facsimile: (925) 945-8792 

SCHIFFRIN, BARROWAY, TOPAZ & 

 KESSLER, LLP 

ERIC. L. ZAGAR 

ROBIN WINCHESTER 

NICHOLE BROWNING 

J. DANIEL ALBERT 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

Telephone: (610) 667-7706 

Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Yenna Wu and Linda Erikson 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 7 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

 8 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

Dated: July 10, 2007 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP

JOHN K. GRANT 

SHAWN A. WILLIAMS 

MONIQUE C. WINKLER 

AELISH M. BAIG 

By:_______/s/ Shawn A. Williams_________ Shawn A. Williams 

100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 288-4545 

Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 

LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 

DARREN J. ROBBINS 

TRAVIS E. DOWNS III 

KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF 

JAMES J. JACONETTE 

BENNY C. GOODMAN III 

MARY LYNNE CALKINS 

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 

San Diego, CA 92101-3301 

Telephone: (619) 231-1058 

Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 

LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 

THOMAS G. WILHELM 

9601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510 

Los Angeles, CA 90210 

Telephone: (310) 859-3100 

Facsimile: (310) 278-2148 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Frank A. Grucel, Jr.

I, Joseph E. Floren, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. I hereby attest that each of the two signatories 

identified above has concurred in this filing. 

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 8 of 9
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

 9 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO 

ORDERED. 

DATED: __________________, 2007 

 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 

 United States District Judge 

1-SF/7572139.3 

8/2

Case 5:07-cv-02388-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/02/07 Page 9 of 9