Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02042-16/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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838 

STEVEN D. GUGGENHEIM, State Bar No. 201386 

CAZ HASHEMI, State Bar No. 210239 

CAMERON P. HOFFMAN, State Bar No. 229316 

MARK T. OAKES, State Bar No. 234598 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: moakes@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS 

SYSTEMS, INC., NEAL DEMPSEY, SETH 

NEIMAN and LARRY SONSINI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

PRENA SMAJLAJ, Individually and On Behalf 

of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, 

INC., GREGORY L. REYES, ANTONIO 

CANOVA, LARRY W. SONSINI, SETH D. 

NEIMAN and NEAL DEMPSEY, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:05-cv-2042 CRB 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 258 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY

-1- CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, on April 14, 2006, Lead Plaintiff, the Arkansas Public Employees 

Retirement System (“APERS”), filed its Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the 

“Complaint”); 

WHEREAS, by order dated November 3, 2006, the Court denied motions to dismiss 

submitted by defendants Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (“Brocade”), Greg Reyes, and 

Antonio Canova; and the Court granted motions to dismiss submitted by defendants KPMG LLP, 

Neal Dempsey, Mark Leslie, Nicholas Moore, Seth Neiman, Christopher Paisley and Larry 

Sonsini; 

WHEREAS, by Court order dated November 3, 2006, the Court granted APERS’ leave to 

amend within sixty (60) days; 

WHEREAS, APERS filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the 

“Amended Complaint”) on January 2, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the Amended Complaint names as defendants the following three 

individuals who were previously dismissed from the case: Neal Dempsey, Seth Neiman and 

Larry Sonsini (the “Audit Committee Defendants”); 

WHEREAS, discovery in this case is currently stayed pursuant to the Private Securities 

Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3) (“PSLRA”), except for the Court Order granting 

APERS’ Motion for Partial Modification of the PSLRA Discovery Stay; 

WHEREAS, the Court indicated at the November 3, 2006 hearing that APERS would 

have only one additional opportunity to amend with respect to the dismissed defendants; 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding the possibility for discovery 

between APERS and Brocade, Dempsey, Neiman and Sonsini in light of the fact that APERS 

already filed its Amended Complaint and may not further amend in order to respond to a motion 

to dismiss by the Audit Committee Defendants (and therefore may not use any discovery from 

Brocade, Dempsey, Neiman and/or Sonsini to withstand a motion to dismiss by the Audit 

Committee Defendants); and 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 258 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY

-2- CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding a briefing schedule for motions 

to dismiss by the Audit Committee Defendants; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, 

subject to approval of the Court, that: 

1. The schedule for the Audit Committee Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended 

Complaint shall be as follows: 

Motion to Dismiss Due: February 16, 2007 

APERS’ Opposition Due: March 30, 2007 

Reply Due: April 25, 2007 

Hearing on Motion to Dismiss: May 11, 2007 at 10:00 a.m., or such other date and 

time as the Court deems appropriate 

2. Discovery shall immediately commence between Brocade and APERS. Discovery 

against Dempsey, Neiman, and Sonsini shall be conducted against them as third parties 

until such time, if ever, that APERS’ claims against them survive a motion to dismiss. 

3. On November 3, 2006, the Court granted APERS’ leave to amend the claims against 

Dempsey, Neiman and/or Sonsini one time and ordered that any such amendment must 

be filed no later than January 2, 2007. APERS filed its Amended Complaint on January 

2, 2007, in compliance with the Court’s order. In the event the Court grants a motion to 

dismiss the Amended Complaint as to Dempsey, Neiman and/or Sonsini, APERS agrees 

not to assert as ground for error on appeal that it was improper for the Court to not grant 

APERS’ leave to again amend claims as to Dempsey, Neiman and/or Sonsini after 

January 2, 2007. However, this agreement does not apply to and/or preclude APERS’ 

right and/or ability to file any motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Moreover, in the event the Court denies any motion to dismiss the Amended 

Complaint as to Dempsey, Neiman and/or Sonsini, this agreement does not apply to 

and/or preclude APERS’ right and/or ability to thereafter file an amended complaint as to 

claims against any such defendant. 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 258 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY

-3- CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

Dated: January 12, 2007 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Steven D. Guggenheim 

Steven D. Guggenheim 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Neal 

Dempsey, Seth Neiman and Larry Sonsini 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 258 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY

-4- CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

Dated: January 12, 2007 NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 

205 Linda Drive 

Daingerfield, TX 75638 

 Telephone: (903) 645-7333 

Facsimile: (903) 645-4415 

By: /s/ Bradley E. Beckworth 

Bradley E. Beckworth 

Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the 

Proposed Class 

 PATTON, ROBERTS, MCWILLIAMS 

& CAPSHAW, LLP 

Century Bank Plaza 

2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 400 Texarkana, TX 75505-6128 Telephone: 903-334-7000 Facsimile: 903-330-7007 

Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the 

Proposed Class 

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 

555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501 

San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-772-4700 Facsimile: 415-772-4707 

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the 

Proposed Class 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

For good cause appearing, the foregoing stipulation is approved. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ 

THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 

 United States District Judge 

January 17, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 258 Filed 01/19/07 Page 5 of 5