Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02009/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02009-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

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] ORDER STAYING CASE 

CASE NO. C-05-02009-MMC 

357621.01

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065 

JAN NIELSEN LITTLE - #100029 

MICHAEL D. CELIO - #197998 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

Attorneys for Defendants 

M. RICHARD ASHER, BRUCE McMILLAN, 

LEONARD S. COLEMAN, TIMOTHY MOTT, 

WILLIAM J. BYRON, ROBERT W. PITTMAN, 

JOEL LINZNER, WARREN C. JENSON, 

GERHARD FLORIN, LAWRENCE F. PROBST, III, 

DON A. MATTRICK, NANCY L. SMITH, 

STEPHEN BENÉ, J. RUSSELL RUEFF, JR. and 

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WALTER HAMMOCK, derivatively on 

behalf of Nominal Defendant ELECTRONIC 

ARTS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v.

M. RICHARD ASHER, BRUCE 

McMILLAN, LEONARD S. COLEMAN, 

TIMOTHY MOTT, WILLIAM J. BYRON, 

ROBERT W. PITTMAN, JOEL LINZNER, 

WARREN C. JENSON, GERHARD 

FLORIN, LAWRENCE F. PROBST, III, 

DON A. MATTRICK, NANCY L. SMITH, 

STEPHEN BENÉ and J. RUSSELL RUEFF, 

JR.

Defendants,

and

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., 

Nominal Defendant, 

 Case No. C-05-02009-MMC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER STAYING CASE UNTIL 

RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO 

DISMISS RELATED CLASS ACTION 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Date Comp. Filed: May 16, 2005 

Case 3:05-cv-02009-MMC Document 25 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE 

CASE NO. C-05-02009-MMC 

357621.01

WHEREAS, this action was filed on May 16, 2005; and 

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2005 this action was related to case 05-1219 MMC, In re 

Electronic Arts Securities Litigation; and

WHEREAS, an amended complaint was filed in In re Electronic Arts Securities 

Litigation (the “Related Class Action”) on August 12, 2005; and 

WHEREAS, by prior order of this Court, defendants have until September 26, 2005 to 

respond to the amended consolidated complaint; and 

WHEREAS, defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the Related Class Action 

complaint; and 

WHEREAS, the issues raised by the Related Class Action complaint and the issues 

raised in the instant action are interrelated as they involve the same facts and some of the same 

legal theories; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred extensively about this case and agree 

that it would be more efficient if the Court considered any motion related to this case after the 

Court resolves defendants’ motion to dismiss the Related Class Action; and 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that it would conserve judicial resources if the court was 

not required to consider a motion to dismiss the instant complaint until after it had ruled on the 

Related Class Action complaint; and 

WHEREAS, the parties further believe that the Court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the Related Class Action complaint will have a significant impact on the potential 

disposition of this case, including but not limited to settlement or dismissal, 

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED THAT: 

1. Plaintiffs shall not be required to file an amended complaint in this action until 

30 days after the court rules on Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss the 

Related Class Action complaint in In re Electronic Arts Securities Litigation; 

2. All other proceedings in this case, including all discovery and initial disclosure 

requirements, are stayed until 30 days after the court rules on Defendants’ 

forthcoming motion to dismiss the Related Class Action complaint in In re 

Case 3:05-cv-02009-MMC Document 25 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 3
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 [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE 

CASE NO. C-05-02009-MMC 

357621.01

Electronic Arts Securities Litigation. 

3. Defendants shall have 45 days from the date an amended complaint is filed to 

answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. Should defendants 

move to dismiss the amended complaint, Plaintiffs shall have 45 days from the 

date of the filing of Defendants’ motion to dismiss to file their opposition, and 

Defendants shall have 15 days to file their reply.

Dated: September 6, 2005. KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/ Michael D. Celio ______________

MICHAEL D. CELIO 

Attorneys for Defendants 

M. RICHARD ASHER, et al. 

Dated: September 6, 2005. MARY ALEXANDER ASSOCIATES 

By: /s/ Mary E. Alexander (by express permission)

MARY E. ALEXANDER 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WALTER HAMMOCK 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2005 

By: __________________________________ 

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

September 6

Case 3:05-cv-02009-MMC Document 25 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 3