Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03476/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03476-10/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

PAUL T. FRIEDMAN (CA SBN 98381)

PFriedman@mofo.com

PHILIP T. BESIROF (CA SBN 185053)

PBesirof@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendant

ANDREW M. MILLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARK NATHANSON, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

POLYCOM, INC., ANDREW M. MILLER,

MICHAEL R. KOUREY, and ERIC F.

BROWN,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 7
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, plaintiff Mark Nathanson

(“Lead Plaintiff”) and defendants Polycom, Inc., Michael R. Kourey, Eric F. Brown, and

Andrew M. Miller (“Defendants”) respectfully request that the Court adopt the parties’ stipulation 

below as the order of the Court, which sets forth an amended schedule for response(s) to the

Second Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (ECF No. 79)

(the “Second Amended Complaint”).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION

In support of this stipulation, the undersigned parties provide the following facts, which

are verified in the supporting Declaration of Philip T. Besirof:

1. On February 24, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint for

Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “First Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 47);

2. On April 25, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint

(ECF Nos. 51, 53);

3. On April 3, 2015, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’

motions to dismiss (ECF No. 72), providing Lead Plaintiff until May 4, 2015, to amend his

complaint;

4. On May 4, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint;

5. On May 5, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint are due by June 18, 2015; Lead

Plaintiff’s opposition briefs are due by August 3, 2015; and Defendants’ reply briefs are due by 

August 31, 2015 (ECF No. 82) (“Scheduling Order”); and

6. On June 15, 2015, the parties agreed to notice their motions to dismiss for hearing

on Friday, October 23, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., or at such other time as the matters may be heard. In

light of this proposed hearing date, the parties believe that the interests of judicial economy and

efficiency will be well served by modifying the current briefing schedule and reallocating the

time to better coincide with the proposed hearing date.

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 7
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 2

STIPULATION

In light of these facts, the undersigned parties jointly request that the Court modify the

briefing schedule for Defendants’ motions to dismiss currently set forth in the Scheduling Order

as follows:

A. Defendants shall file their motion(s) to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

no later than June 26, 2015;

B. Lead Plaintiff shall file his opposition brief(s) to Defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss

no later than August 28, 2015;

C. Defendants shall file their reply brief(s) in support of their motion(s) to dismiss no 

later than October 2, 2015; and

D. Defendants shall notice their motions to dismiss for hearing on Friday, October 23, 

2015, at 10:00 a.m., or at such other time as the matter may be heard.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: June 17, 2015 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof

Paul T. Friedman

Philip T. Besirof

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Email: PFriedman@mofo.com

Email: PBesirof@mofo.com

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 7
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 3

Dated: June 17, 2015 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Rodney G. Strickland

Rodney G. Strickland

Keith E. Eggleton

Rodney G. Strickland

Luke A. Liss

Philip K. Rucker

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

Telephone: (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 493-6811

Email: keggleton@wsgr.com

Email: rstrickland@wsgr.com

Email: lliss@wsgr.com

Email: prucker@wsgr.com

Attorneys for Defendants Polycom, Inc., Michael R. Kourey, and Eric F. Brown

Dated: June 17, 2015 POMERANTZ LLP

By: /s/ Jeremy A. Lieberman

Jeremy A. Lieberman

JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN

EMMA GILMORE

600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10016 

Telephone: (212) 661-1100

Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Email: egilmore@pomlaw.com

PATRICK V. DAHLSTROM

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: (312) 377-1181

Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Mark Nathanson

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 7
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 4

ECF ATTESTATION

I, Philip Besirof, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file

this motion. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Rodney G.

Strickland and Jeremy A. Lieberman have concurred in this filing.

Dated: June 17, 2015 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof

Paul T. Friedman

Philip T. Besirof

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Email: PFriedman@mofo.com

Email: PBesirof@mofo.com

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Miller

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 7
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 5

DECLARATION OF PHILIP T. BESIROF

I, PHILIP T. BESIROF, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted

to practice before this Court. I am a member of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, and

counsel of record for defendant Andrew Miller. I submit this Declaration in support of the

parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (hereafter, the “Stipulation”). If called as a

witness, I would testify to the facts listed below.

2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, I attest that the facts set forth in the Stipulation,

paragraphs 1 through 6 inclusive, are all true and accurate.

3. This is the parties’ ninth request for a modification of time and the second with

respect to the Second Amended Complaint. The parties previously filed stipulations to extend the

time to respond to previously operative complaints on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17), and

December 30, 2013 (ECF No. 45). Both of these stipulations were approved by the Court

(see ECF Nos. 18, 46). Additionally, the parties filed six stipulated requests to continue the

Initial Case Management Conference; these were filed on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 17),

December 9, 2013 (ECF No. 36), April 4, 2014 (ECF No. 49), November 21, 2014 (ECF No. 64),

January 2, 2015 (ECF No. 66), and February 6, 2015 (ECF No. 69). The Court granted these six

previous requests (see ECF Nos. 18, 39, 50, 65, 67, 68, 70). Finally, the parties filed one

stipulation to extend the time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2015 

(ECF No. 80), which was granted on May 5, 2015 (ECF No. 82).

4. Other than the briefing scheduling for the motions to dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint, the proposed schedule will not impact any other deadlines or dates set by the Court.

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 7
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] SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC 6

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed in San Francisco, California,

on this 17th day of June, 2015. 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________________ 

THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI

United States District Judge

June 18, 2015

Case 4:13-cv-03476-YGR Document 84 Filed 06/18/15 Page 7 of 7