Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06003/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06003-19/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB

ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL AND

PENDING MOTIONS

On July 24, 2015, the Court heard all interested parties regarding a motion for final approval 

of the Third Amended Settlement (the “Settlement”) in this matter after carefully considering all

objections, motions, and other filings in conjunction therewith. For the reasons detailed on the

record in open court and needing no elaboration in a further written order, the Court determined that

the objections were without merit because the value of the governance reforms is commensurate

with the challenges apparent in Plaintiffs’ claims, that the scope of the releases has been

appropriately narrowed, and that the Settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of the

claims in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTED final approval. In light of that ruling,

the Court dispenses of pending motions on the docket as follows. 

The following motions are DENIED AS MOOT: 

• Docket 308, Sushovan Hussain’s Motion to Intervene, is DENIED AS MOOT on agreement

of the parties in light of the this Court’s subsequent rulings regarding the bar order. 

Case 3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document 413 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The following motions are DENIED:

• Docket 352, Objector A.J. Copeland’s Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order

of Magistrate Judge, is DENIED. For the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Laporte’s Order

on this matter (dkt. 348), the Court finds that Copeland was granted access to all the

discovery to which he was entitled in order to present thorough and substantiated objections

to the Settlement before this Court.

• Docket 358, Plaintiff Harriet Steinberg and Edward Vogel’s Motion for Relief from NonDispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge, is DENIED. For the reasons stated in

Magistrate Judge Laporte’s Order granting in part and denying in part the aforementioned

Plaintiffs’ request for discovery (dkt. 354), the Court finds that HP was not obligated to

produce the specific materials at issue because they were not relevant to the fairness of the

settlement. 

• Docket 370, Objector A.J. Copeland’s Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order

of Magistrate Judge, is DENIED. For the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Laporte’s Order

on this matter (dkt. 364), the Court finds that Copeland was granted access to all the

discovery to which he was entitled in order to present thorough and substantiated objections

to the Settlement before this Court.

The following motions are GRANTED:

• Docket 386, Objector Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to Modify Page Limits on

her Objection to the proposed settlement, is hereby GRANTED for good cause. 

• Docket 394, HP’s Administrative Motion to Modify Page Limits on its Response to

Objections, is hereby GRANTED for good cause. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document 413 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2