Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05642/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05642-11/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 

 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE 

LIMITS; CASE NO. C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MSTI\3150512_1.DOC 

TERRY T. JOHNSON, State Bar No. 121569 

STEVEN D. GUGGENHEIM, State Bar No. 201386 

KRISTIN A. DILLEHAY, State Bar No. 187257 

CAMERON P. HOFFMAN, State Bar No. 229316 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: kdillehay@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for the Redback Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE: 

REDBACK NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION. 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PAGE 

LIMITS 

**E-filed 7/12/07** ---------------

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 262 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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 

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. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE 

LIMITS; CASE NO. C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-1- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MSTI\3150512_1.DOC 

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, on March 30, 2007, the Court entered an Order dismissing plaintiffs’ Fourth 

Amended Consolidated Complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend as to the Redback 

Defendants (the “Order”); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order, plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Consolidated Complaint 

for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) was filed on June 1, 2007; 

WHEREAS, on June 25, 2007 the Court entered an Order pursuant to which the Redback 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is due to be filed on July 13, 2007, plaintiffs’ 

opposition to any motion to dismiss the Complaint is due to be filed on August 22, 2007, and the 

Redback Defendants’ reply in further support of their motion to dismiss the Complaint is due to 

be filed on September 5, 2007; 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) provides for a twenty-five (25) page limit on any 

motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities filed in this action; 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) provides for a twenty-five (25) page limit on any 

opposition to any motion filed in this action; 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-3(c) provides for a fifteen (15) page limit on any reply 

memorandum of points and authorities in further support of any motion filed in this action; 

WHEREAS, in order to promote the interests of judicial efficiency, defendants Kevin 

DeNuccio, Pierre Lamond, Thomas Cronan, Vinod Khosla, Dennis Wolf, Vivek Ragavan, 

Dennis Barsema, Gaurav Garg, William Kurtz, Craig Gentner, Promod Haque and Randall 

Kruep (collectively, the “Redback Defendants”) intend to file a joint motion to dismiss the 

Complaint; 

WHEREAS, given the complexity of the Complaint, as well as the complexity of the law 

governing the allegations in the Complaint, and given that each of the Redback Defendants 

would be entitled to file a separate, twenty-five (25) page motion to dismiss and supporting 

memorandum of points and authorities, and a separate fifteen (15) page reply memorandum of 

points and authorities pursuant to the Local Rules, the Redback Defendants believe it is 

appropriate to permit them to file a joint motion and supporting memoranda of points and 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 262 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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 

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. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE 

LIMITS; CASE NO. C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-2- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MSTI\3150512_1.DOC 

authorities in excess of the twenty-five (25) and fifteen (15) page limits provided by the Local 

Rules; 

WHEREAS, the Redback Defendants believe that they will need no more than thirty (30) 

pages for their memorandum of points and authorities in support of their joint motion to dismiss, 

and no more than twenty (20) pages for their reply memorandum of points and authorities in 

further support of their motion to dismiss; and 

WHEREAS, plaintiffs are not opposed to the page limits proposed by the Redback 

Defendants. 

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

subject to approval of the Court, that: 

1. The Redback Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of 

their joint motion to dismiss the Complaint may exceed the twenty-five (25) page limit imposed 

by Civil Local Rule 7-2(b), but may not exceed a total of thirty (30) pages, exclusive of the 

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

2. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Redback Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the 

Complaint may exceed the twenty-five page limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), but may 

not exceed a total of thirty (30) pages, exclusive of caption page, table of contents, table of 

authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

3. The Redback Defendants’ reply memorandum of points and authorities in further 

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

limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), but may not exceed a total of twenty (20) pages, 

exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 262 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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 

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. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE 

LIMITS; CASE NO. C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-3- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MSTI\3150512_1.DOC 

Dated: July 11, 2007 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Kristin A. Dillehay 

Terry T. Johnson 

Steven D. Guggenheim 

Kristin A. Dillehay 

Cameron P. Hoffman 

Attorneys for the Redback Defendants 

Dated: July 11, 2007 GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 

By: /s/ John C. Kairis 

Stuart M. Grant (pro hac vice) 

John C. Kairis (pro hac vice) 

Kimberly L. Wierzel (pro hac vice) 

Chase Manhattan Centre 

1201 North Market Street 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Tel: 302.622.7000 

Fax: 302.622.7100 

sgrant@gelaw.com 

Merrill Glen Emerick (State Bar No. 117248) 

Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot 

400 S. El Camino Real, Suite 700 

San Mateo, CA 94402 

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff 

The Connecticut Retirement Plan and Trust 

Funds 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 262 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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 

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. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE 

LIMITS; CASE NO. C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-4- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MSTI\3150512_1.DOC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing: 

1. The Redback Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of 

their joint motion to dismiss the Complaint may exceed the twenty-five (25) page limit imposed 

by Civil Local Rule 7-2(b), but may not exceed a total of thirty (30) pages, exclusive of the 

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

2. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Redback Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the 

Complaint may exceed the twenty-five (25) page limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), but 

may not exceed a total of thirty (30) pages, exclusive of caption page, table of contents, table of 

authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

3. The Redback Defendants’ reply memorandum of points and authorities in further 

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

limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), but may not exceed a total of twenty (20) pages, 

exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations and exhibits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ _______________________________ 

THE HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge 

---------------- 7/12/07

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 262 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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 

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. & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE 

LIMITS; CASE NO. C-03-5642 JF (HRL) 

-5- C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\MSTI\3150512_1.DOC 

 I, Kristin A. Dillehay, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being 

used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Page Limits. In compliance with 

General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that John Kairis has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: July 11, 2007 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Kristin A. Dillehay 

Kristin A. Dillehay 

Attorneys for the Redback Defendants 

Case 5:03-cv-05642-JF Document 262 Filed 07/12/07 Page 6 of 6