Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05598/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05598-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

DLA PIPER US LLP 

SAN DIEGO

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- 

MASTER FILE NO. C-06-05598-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

SHIRLI F. WEISS, Bar No. 079225 

shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com 

GERARD A. TRIPPITELLI, Bar No. 235788 

jerry.trippitelli@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

401 B Street, Suite 1700 

San Diego, CA 92101-4297 

Tel: 619.699.2700 

Fax: 619.699.2701 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Foundry 

Networks, Inc. and Defendants Alfred J. Amoroso, 

C. Nicholas Keating, Jr., J. Steven Young, Laurence 

L. Akin, Ken K. Cheng, John P. Burger, Benjamin 

D. Taft, Paul L. Twombly, Richard W. Bridges, 

Chandra Kopparapu, Ivy Pei Shan Hsu, Karl D. 

Triebes, Lee Chen, Robert W. Shackleton, William 

S. Kallaos, Andrew K. Ludwick 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC. 

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION 

Master File No. C-06-05598-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] 

ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

ALL ACTIONS 

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2006, this Court entered an “Order Consolidating Cases for 

All Purposes and Setting Schedule for Filing of Consolidated Complaint (the “Consolidation 

Order”); and 

WHEREAS, the Consolidation Order included a schedule for (1) Plaintiffs’ filing and 

service of a consolidated complaint; (2) Nominal Defendant Foundry Network, Inc.’s 

(“Foundry’s”) and the individual defendants’ answers or other responses to such consolidated 

complaint; and (3) any opposition briefs and reply briefs relating to a motion to dismiss filed by 

*E-FILED - 5/7/07*

Case 5:06-cv-05598-RMW Document 53 Filed 05/07/07 Page 1 of 5
DLA PIPER US LLP 

SAN DIEGO

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- 

MASTER FILE NO. C-06-05598-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Foundry and/or the individual defendants; and 

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Derivative Complaint 

(the “Consolidated Complaint”); and 

WHEREAS, the Consolidated Complaint names the following persons as individual 

defendants (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”): Bobby R. Johnson, Jr., Alfred J. Amoroso, 

C. Nicholas Keating, Jr., J. Steven Young, Laurence L. Akin, Timothy D. Heffner, Ken K. Cheng, 

John P. Burger, Benjamin D. Taft, Paul L. Twombly, Richard W. Bridges, Chandra Kopparapu, 

Ivy Pei Shan Hsu, Karl D. Triebes, Lee Chen, Robert W. Shackleton, William S. Kallaos and 

Andrew K. Ludwick; and 

WHEREAS, Foundry, the Individual Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed to amend the 

briefing schedule set forth in the Consolidation Order to facilitate an orderly and efficient briefing 

of motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint under Rules 23.1 and 12(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure or otherwise, as set forth herein; and 

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiffs, Foundry and the 

Individual Defendants, through their respective counsel of record, as follows: 

1. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Consolidation Order are amended and superseded by 

this Stipulation and Order. All other paragraphs of the Consolidation Order remain in full force 

and effect. 

2. No later than 45 days after service of the Consolidated Complaint, Foundry shall 

file its anticipated motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for Plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy 

the requirements of Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other reasons, 

Plaintiffs’ failure to make a pre-suit demand and failure to sufficiently plead that such demand 

would have been excused (the “Rule 23.1 Motion”). Plaintiffs shall file and serve their 

opposition to the Rule 23.1 Motion no later than 45 days after service of the Rule 23.1 Motion. 

Foundry shall file and serve its reply to the opposition no later than 30 days after service of the 

opposition. 

3. The Individual Defendants shall not be required to answer or otherwise respond to 

the Consolidated Complaint unless the Court denies the Rule 23.1 Motion. In the event that the 

Case 5:06-cv-05598-RMW Document 53 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 5
DLA PIPER US LLP 

SAN DIEGO

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- 

MASTER FILE NO. C-06-05598-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Rule 23.1 Motion is denied, the Individual Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the 

Consolidated Complaint no later than 45 days after the Court’s entry of the Order denying the 

Rule 23.1 Motion. In the event that any of the Individual Defendants respond to the Consolidated 

Complaint by filing motions directed at the Consolidated Complaint, (1) Plaintiffs shall file and 

serve their opposition to such motions no later than 45 days after service of such motions and (2) 

the moving Individual Defendants shall file and serve their reply no later than 30 days after 

service of the opposition. 

4. If Foundry does not file the anticipated Rule 23.1 Motion, Foundry and each of the 

Individual Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint no later 

than 45 days from the date of service of the Consolidated Complaint. In the event that Foundry 

and/or any of the Individual Defendants respond by filing any motion directed at the Consolidated 

Complaint, (1) Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to any such motion(s) no later than 

45 days after the service of such motion(s) and (2) Foundry and/or the Individual Defendants, as 

applicable, shall file and serve a reply no later than 30 days after service of the opposition. 

5. The parties agree that, by entering into this stipulation, they do not waive any 

claim, argument or defense that they may have in this action and that nothing in this stipulation 

limits the rights of any party to take any action not inconsistent with its express terms. 

Dated: April 17, 2007 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

By /s/ Shirli F. Weiss 

SHIRLI F. WEISS 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Foundry 

Networks, Inc. and Defendants Alfred J. Amoroso, 

C. Nicholas Keating, Jr., J. Steven Young, 

Laurence L. Akin, Ken K. Cheng, John P. Burger, 

Benjamin D. Taft, Paul L. Twombly, Richard W. 

Bridges, Chandra Kopparapu, Ivy Pei Shan Hsu, 

Karl D. Triebes, Lee Chen, Robert W. Shackleton, 

William S. Kallaos, Andrew K. Ludwick 

Case 5:06-cv-05598-RMW Document 53 Filed 05/07/07 Page 3 of 5
DLA PIPER US LLP 

SAN DIEGO

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- 

MASTER FILE NO. C-06-05598-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Dated: April 17, 2007 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC 

By /s/ Boris Feldman 

 BORIS FELDMAN 

Attorneys for Defendant Bobby R. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 I, SHIRLI F. WEISS, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. In 

compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that BORIS FELDMAN has concurred 

in this filing. 

Dated: April 17, 2007 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

By /s/ Elliot R. Peters 

 ELLIOT R. PETERS 

Attorneys for Defendant Timothy D. Heffner 

I, SHIRLI F. WEISS, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. In 

compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that ELLIOT R. PETERS has concurred 

in this filing. 

Case 5:06-cv-05598-RMW Document 53 Filed 05/07/07 Page 4 of 5
DLA PIPER US LLP 

SAN DIEGO

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- 

MASTER FILE NO. C-06-05598-RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Dated: April 17, 2007 SCHIFFRIN BARROWAY TOPAZ & KESSLER 

LLP 

By /s/ Alan R. Plutzik 

 ALAN R. PLUTZIK 

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

I, SHIRLI F. WEISS, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. In 

compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that ALAN R. PLUTZIK has concurred 

in this filing. 

Dated: April 17, 2007 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 

By /s/ Julie E. Farris 

 JULIE E. FARRIS 

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

I, SHIRLI F. WEISS, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. In 

compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that JULIE E. FARRIS has concurred in 

this filing. 

* * * * 

[] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ____________________ ____________________________________ 

 THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

GT\6527219.1

5/7/07

Case 5:06-cv-05598-RMW Document 53 Filed 05/07/07 Page 5 of 5