Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06003/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06003-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE

LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

ALL ACTIONS

Case No. 12-cv-06003-CRB (EDL)

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 271, 307, 308

On March 13, 2015, the District Judge granted a motion for preliminary approval of the 

Third Amended Settlement and referred “[a]ll discovery motions in connection with final 

approval” to this Court as well as “[a]ll other pending motions” not addressed by the order for a 

“determination as to whether they must be resolved prior to the hearing on final approval.” (Dkt. 

319 at 10.) Currently pending are: (1) Demand Refused Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the 

consolidation order (Dkt. 271); (2) Shareholder Copeland’s motion seeking an order requiring the 

posting of documents (Dkt. 307); and (3) Sushovan Hussain’s motion to intervene (Dkt. 308). For 

the reasons set forth below, this Court recommends that Mr. Hussain’s motion be resolved prior to 

the final approval hearing.

Demand Refused Plaintiffs argue that they are differently situated under Delaware law 

from the Demand Futile Plaintiffs and move to sever their claims into a separate action. See In re 

HP Derivative Litig., 2011 WL 5914216, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011) (Davila, J.). 

Because the Third Amended Settlement, if approved, would release claims related to the 

Autonomy acquisition, including those of the Demand Refused Plaintiffs, this motion need not be 

resolved prior to the final approval hearing. 

Shareholder Copeland’s motion seeks an order requiring Defendant Hewlett-Packard 

Case 3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document 332 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Company (“HP”), in advance of the hearing on preliminary approval of the Third Amended 

Settlement, to “place in the record (a) the so-called ‘pre-action letters,’ and responses thereto, (b) 

the complaints filed by HP against the Autonomy Parties (to the extent that they have been filed) 

and responses thereto, and (c) all reports/recommendations of the DRC which are material to the 

Court’s determination of whether the January 22 Proposal should be preliminarily approved.” 

(Dkt. 307 at 1.) The motion is moot as the District Judge already granted preliminary approval, so 

it need not be resolved. Furthermore, Shareholder Copeland’s motion for discovery in connection 

with the final approval hearing (Dkt. 320) seeks these same documents.

Mr. Hussain moves to intervene for the purpose of taking discovery and challenging the 

settlement on the grounds that final approval of the Third Amended Settlement would prejudice 

him by precluding him from asserting Autonomy-related claims against HP. (See Dkts. 160, 293, 

308.) Although HP argues that the settlement would not prejudice Mr. Hussain because it would 

give him a “judgment credit” worth the full value of his claims (see Dkt. 304), Mr. Hussain’s 

motion bears on whether the Third Amended Settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and 

reasonable.” See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, 

this Court recommends that Mr. Hussain’s motion be resolved prior to the final approval hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015

________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document 332 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2