Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02042-19/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

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. 

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, ANTONIO 

CANOVA, LARRY W. SONSINI, SETH D. 

NEIMAN and NEAL DEMPSEY, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PAGE 

LIMITS

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 282 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

-1- CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2007, Lead Plaintiff, the Arkansas Public Employees 

Retirement System (“APERS”), filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the 

“Amended Complaint”); 

WHEREAS, the Amended Complaint names as defendants the following three 

individuals who were previously dismissed from the case: Neal Dempsey, Seth Neiman and 

Larry Sonsini (the “Audit Committee Defendants”); 

WHEREAS, by stipulation dated February 12, 2007, the parties agreed to a proposed 

briefing schedule and hearing date for the Audit Committee Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 

Amended Complaint, and the Court approved the briefing schedule by order entered February 

15, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the Audit Committee Defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently due March 

9, 2007: 

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, the Audit Committee 

Defendants intend to file a joint motion to dismiss; 

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

governing the allegations in the Complaint, and that the Audit Committee Defendants will 

coordinate their motions to dismiss, the Audit Committee 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, APERS does not object to the Audit Committee Defendants’ page limit 

requests, so long as APERS is permitted an equal number of pages to respond; 

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

subject to approval of the Court, that: 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 282 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

-2- CASE NO. 3:05-CV-2042 CRB

1. The Audit Committee Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the Amended 

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 seventeen 

(17) pages, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities, declarations, 

exhibits, and summary of argument. 

2. APERS opposition to the Audit Committee Defendants’ motion to dismiss may 

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

total of seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of 

authorities, declarations, exhibits, and summary of argument. 

Dated: March 9, 2007 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Mark T. Oakes 

 Mark T. Oakes 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Neal 

Dempsey, Seth Neiman and Larry Sonsini 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 

Case 3:05-cv-02042-CRB Document 282 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

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

Dated: March 9, 2007 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 

 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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

For good cause appearing, the foregoing stipulation is approved. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ 

THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 

 United States District Judge 

March 15, 2007

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 282 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 4