Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02042-11/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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

2913829_2.DOC 

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., SETH NEIMAN, NEAL 

DEMPSEY, MARK LESLIE, LARRY 

SONSINI, CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY and 

NICHOLAS MOORE 

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 and ANTONIO 

CANOVA, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PAGE 

LIMITS

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 205 Filed 07/17/06 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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

-1- 2913829_2.DOC 

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, plaintiff filed its Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) on 

April 14, 2006; 

WHEREAS, by stipulation dated June 7, 2006, the parties agreed to a proposed briefing 

schedule and hearing date for the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint, and the Court 

approved the briefing schedule by order entered June 9, 2006; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the briefing schedule, the defendants’ motions to dismiss are 

currently due July 14, 2006; 

WHEREAS, the Complaint is 105 pages in length and names eleven defendants; 

WHEREAS, the eleven defendants are represented by five separate law firms; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order, each of the 

defendants is entitled to file a separate, fifteen (15) page motion to dismiss and supporting 

memorandum of points and authorities, and a separate reply memorandum of points and 

authorities; 

WHEREAS, in order to promote the interest of judicial efficiency, defendants intend to 

coordinate their motions to dismiss to the extent practicable and defendants Brocade 

Communications Systems, Inc. (“Brocade”) and Seth Neiman, Neal Dempsey, Mark Leslie, 

Larry Sonsini, Christopher Paisley and Nicholas Moore (the “Audit Committee Defendants”) 

intend to file a joint motion to dismiss the Complaint; 

WHEREAS, given the complexity of the Complaint, the complexity of the law governing 

the allegations in the Complaint, and that defendants will attempt to coordinate their motions to 

dismiss, defendants believe it is appropriate to permit them to exceed the applicable page limits 

provided by this Court’s Standing Order and the Local Rules; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff does not object to defendants’ page limit requests, so long as 

plaintiff is permitted an equal number of pages to respond; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff wishes to have the option to file separate oppositions to the 

defendants’ motions to dismiss or one omnibus opposition to all the motions to dismiss, and 

defendants do not object; 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 205 Filed 07/17/06 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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

-2- 2913829_2.DOC 

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

subject to approval of the Court, that: 

1. Brocade and the six Audit Committee Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the 

operative complaint, along with supporting memoranda of points and authorities, may exceed the 

fifteen (15) page limit imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed a total of 

forty-two (42) pages, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, 

declarations, exhibits, and summary of argument. 

2. Brocade and the six Audit Committee Defendants’ reply memoranda in further 

support of their joint motion to dismiss the operative complaint may exceed the (15) page limit, 

but may not exceed a total of twenty (20) pages, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, 

table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

3. Defendant KPMG LLP’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint, along with 

its supporting memorandum of points and authorities, may exceed the fifteen (15) page limit 

imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages, exclusive of 

the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations, exhibits, and summary of 

argument. 

4. Defendant Greg Reyes’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint, along with 

his supporting memorandum of points and authorities, may exceed the fifteen (15) page limit 

imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed twenty (20) pages, exclusive of the 

caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations, exhibits, and summary of 

argument. 

5. Plaintiff may file separate oppositions to the defendants’ motions to dismiss or 

one omnibus opposition. Plaintiff’s oppositions or omnibus opposition may exceed the fifteen 

(15) page limit imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed the combined total 

number of pages allotted to defendants on their motions to dismiss, exclusive of the caption 

page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations, exhibits, and summary of argument. 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 205 Filed 07/17/06 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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

-3- 2913829_2.DOC 

Dated: July 12, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Mark T. Oakes 

Nina F. Locker 

Steven D. Guggenheim 

 Mark T. Oakes 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and 

the Audit Committee Defendants 

Dated: July 12, 2006 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & 

FLOM LLP 

300 South Grand, Suite 3400 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 687-5000 

Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 

By: /s/ Harriet S. Posner 

Richard Marmaro 

 Harriet S. Posner 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Gregory Reyes 

Dated: July 12, 2006 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

275 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 324-7000 

Facsimile: (650) 324-0638 

By: /s/ Alexander Lyon 

Norman Blears 

 Alexander Lyon 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Antonio Canova 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 205 Filed 07/17/06 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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

-4- 2913829_2.DOC 

Dated: July 12, 2006 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 

Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 

By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Ezgar 

Geoffrey M. Ezgar 

Attorneys for Defendant 

KPMG LLP 

Dated: July 12, 2006 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER 

& HEDGES LLP 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

By: /s/ Patrick Doolittle 

John Potter Scott Lawson Patrick Doolittle 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Michael Byrd 

Dated: July 12, 2006 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 

 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 205 Filed 07/17/06 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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

-5- 2913829_2.DOC 

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 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 205 Filed 07/17/06 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] ORDER 

REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB 

-6- 2913829_2.DOC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing: 

1. Brocade and the six Audit Committee Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the 

operative complaint, along with supporting memoranda of points and authorities, may exceed the 

fifteen (15) page limit imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed a total of 

forty-two (42) pages, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, 

declarations, exhibits, and summary of argument. 

2. Brocade and the six Audit Committee Defendants’ reply memoranda in further 

support of their joint motion to dismiss the operative complaint may exceed the (15) page limit, 

but may not exceed a total of twenty (20) pages, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, 

table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

3. Defendant KPMG LLP’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint, along with 

its supporting memorandum of points and authorities, may exceed the fifteen (15) page limit 

imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages, exclusive of 

the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations, exhibits, and summary of 

argument. 

4. Defendant Greg Reyes’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint, along with 

his supporting memorandum of points and authorities, may exceed the fifteen (15) page limit 

imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed twenty (20) pages, exclusive of the 

caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations, exhibits, and summary of 

argument. 

5. Plaintiff may file separate oppositions to the defendants’ motions to dismiss or 

one omnibus opposition. Plaintiff’s oppositions or omnibus opposition may exceed the fifteen 

(15) page limit imposed by this Court’s Standing Order, but may not exceed the combined total 

number of pages allotted to defendants on their motions to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ 

THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 

 United States District Judge 

July 17, 2006

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 205 Filed 07/17/06 Page 7 of 7