Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04984/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04984-0/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 

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838 

STEVEN GUGGENHEIM, State Bar No. 201386 

GREGORY WATTS, State Bar No. 197126 

JONI OSTLER, State Bar No. 230009 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DIANE BUCKLEY, Derivatively and on Behalf of 

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KRIENS, PRADEEP SINDHU, 

WILLIAM R. HEARST III, WILLIAM R. 

STENSRUD, STRATTON SCLAVOS, 

KENNETH LEVY, ROBERT M. CALDERONI, 

KENNETH GOLDMAN, FRANK MARSHALL, 

VINOD KHOSLA, C. RICHARD KRAMLICH, 

MARCEL GANI, JAMES A. DOLCE, JR., 

STEVEN HALEY, PETER L. WEXLER, LLOYD 

CARNEY, and ASHOK KRISHNAMURTHI, 

Defendants, 

and 

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

CASE NO.: C-06-4984 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING 

DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DERIVATIVE 

COMPLAINT 

(Civil L.R. 6-1)

Date: N/A 

Time: N/A 

Before: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

 

Case 5:06-cv-04984-JW Document 7 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 5
STIP EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND -1- 

CASE NO. C-06-4984 PJH 

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 

WHEREAS, there are currently at least seven derivative actions pending in the Northern 

District of California against nominal defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) and 

others arising out of a common set of facts, as set forth below: 

Case Name Case No. Filing Date

Timothy W. Hill v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-03396-JW 05/24/06 

Levi Shemtov v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-03430-JW 05/26/06 

Frank Rizzo v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-03446-JW 05/26/06 

Rahmi Kaya v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-03452-JW 05/26/06 

Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 

Pension Trust Fund v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-03708-JW 06/09/06 

Indiana State District Council of Laborers 

And HOD Carriers Pension Fund v. 

Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-04717-JW 08/03/06 

Buckley v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. C-06-04984-PJH 8/17/06 

WHEREAS, on August 11, 2006, a Related Case Order was issued by the Honorable 

James Ware that designated the following cases as related and assigned the cases to the 

Honorable James Ware: Hill v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al.; Shemtov v. Juniper Networks, Inc. 

et al.; Rizzo v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al.; Kaya v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al., EmployerTeamsters v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al.; and Indiana State District Council of Laborers and 

HOD Carriers Pension Fund v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al.;1

WHEREAS, plaintiffs Hill, Shemtov, Employer-Teamsters, Indiana State District 

Council, and Kaya have each filed motions to consolidate these derivative actions, which 

motions are scheduled to be heard on October 16, 2006 before the Honorable James Ware; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff Shemtov included the Buckley complaint in his motion to 

consolidate the related cases currently assigned to the Honorable James Ware; 

WHEREAS, under the unique circumstances of this case, the parties believe that 

coordination of proceedings in this action and in the several related actions would be a more 

Case 5:06-cv-04984-JW Document 7 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 5
STIP EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND -2- 

CASE NO. C-06-4984 PJH 

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 

efficient use of the parties’ and courts’ resources, and would be in the best interests of the 

Company’s shareholders and investors, and have therefore mutually agreed to extend the 

defendants’ time to respond; 

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

the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants, subject to approval of the 

Court, that: 

1. Defendants need not respond to the current complaint; and 

2. The time for the Defendants to answer, move against or otherwise respond shall 

be extended to sixty (60) days after a consolidated complaint is filed by the lead plaintiff. 

Dated: August 28, 2006 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & 

HERZ LLP 

By /s/ Betsy C. Manifold Betsy C. Manifold 

Francis M. Gregorek 

Betsy C. Manifold 

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 

Rachele R. Rickert 

Symphony Tower 

750 B Street, Suite 2770 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 239-4599 

Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 

Attorneys for Derivative Plaintiff Diane Buckley 

 

(...continued from previous page) 

1

 The present action was filed after the Related Case Order dated August 11, 2006 and 

therefore was not included in that order. 

Case 5:06-cv-04984-JW Document 7 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 5
STIP EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND -3- 

CASE NO. C-06-4984 PJH 

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 

Dated: August 28, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By /s/ Joni Ostler 

Joni Ostler 

2795 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300 

Salt Lake City, UT 84121-6928 

Telephone: (801) 993-6400 

Facsimile: (801) 993-6499 

Nina F. Locker 

Steven Guggenheim 

Gregory Watts 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton 

9/5/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 5:06-cv-04984-JW Document 7 Filed 09/05/06 Page 4 of 5
STIP EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND -4- 

CASE NO. C-06-4984 PJH 

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 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I, Joni Ostler, attest that I have on file an email dated August 28, 2006 from Betsy C. 

Manifold permitting me to sign her name on her behalf, whose holographic signature (“/s/”) 

appears on the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Defendants’ Time to Respond to 

Derivative Complaint, filed with the Court on August 29, 2006. I declare under the penalty of 

perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 

29th day of August, 2006 at Palo Alto, California. 

 By: /s/ Joni Ostler 

 Joni Ostler 

Case 5:06-cv-04984-JW Document 7 Filed 09/05/06 Page 5 of 5