Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03293/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03293-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

STIPULATION CASE NOS. CV 03-03293-JW & C-01-20418-JW (PVT) 

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 

J. NIXON DANIEL, III (Fla. State Bar No. 228761) 

BEGGS & LANE, RLLP

501 Commendencia Street (32502-5915) 

P.O. Box 12950 

Pensacola, FL 32591-2950 

Telephone: (850) 432-2451 

Facsimile: (850) 469-3331 

jnd@beggslane.com

SCOT BERNSTEIN (Ca. State Bar No. 094915) 

LAW OFFICES OF SCOT BERNSTEIN 

10510 Superfortress Ave., Suite C 

Mather Field, CA 95655 

Telephone: (916) 447-0100 

Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 

swampadero@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ian Rogers, Colleen 

Rogers, and The Ian Rogers, M.D. Defined 

Contribution Plan 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IAN ROGERS, COLLEEN ROGERS, and 

THE IAN ROGERS, M.D. DEFINED 

CONTRIBUTION PLAN, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

In re CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CV-03-03293-JW 

 [MDL No. 1527] 

Case No.: C-01-20418-JW (PVT) 

STIPULATION FOR AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGNATE RECORD AND 

STIPULATION REQUESTING AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CLARIFICATION

The parties, Ian Rogers, et al., and Cisco Systems, Inc., hereby stipulate to and request an 

extension of time to and including October 23, 2006, within which to designate the record to be 

 

 [MDL NO. 1527] 

Case 5:03-cv-03293-JW Document 33 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION CASE NOS. CV 03-03293-JW & C-01-20418-JW (PVT) 

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 

remanded to the Northern District of Florida, Case No. 3:03-cv-00032/LAC/MC, and also 

request clarification from the court regarding the remand order from the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation, and as grounds therefore say: 

1. On August 31, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a 

Conditional Remand Order. (Exhibit “A”) 

2. On September 14, 2006, the parties submitted an agreed letter to this court 

seeking an extension of time to designate the record on appeal and seeking a clarification of the 

Conditional Remand Order. (Exhibit “B”) At the time of the parties’ letter, this court had not 

received the remand order. 

3. The portion of the Conditional Remand Order for which the parties sought 

clarification is: 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 7.6(g), and 

coinciding with the effective date of this order, the parties shall 

furnish the Clerk for the Northern District of California with a

stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be 

remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other 

matter filed so as to enable said Clerk to comply with the order of

remand. (Emphasis added.) 

4. It is the parties’ understanding pursuant to a conversation with this court’s law 

clerk, Mindy, that the parties are not required to provide to the court copies of the documents to 

be remanded. 

5. It is further the parties’ understanding pursuant to a conversation with this court’s 

law clerk, Mindy, that the clerk’s office now has received the remand order. 

6. Due to the confusion regarding the remand order and the time needed for the 

parties to confer regarding the record to be remanded, the parties seek an extension of time to 

and including October 23, 2006, within which to designate the record to be remanded. 

 

 [MDL NO. 1527] 

Case 5:03-cv-03293-JW Document 33 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION CASE NOS. CV 03-03293-JW & C-01-20418-JW (PVT) 

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 

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request an order granting an extension of time to 

and including October 23, 2006, to designate the record for remand and an order clarifying that 

the parties are not required to submit copies of the designated documents for remand. 

Dated: September 27, 2006 BEGGS & LANE, RLLP

 By: /S/ 

J. NIXON DANIEL, III 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ian Rogers, Colleen 

 Rogers, and The Ian Rogers, M.D. Defined 

 Contribution Plan 

Dated: September 27, 2006 FENWICK & WEST LLP 

 By: /S/ 

 ILANA S. RUBEL 

Attorneys for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________, 2006 _____________________________ 

 The Honorable James Ware 

United States District Court Judge 

 

 [MDL NO. 1527] 

10/02/06

Case 5:03-cv-03293-JW Document 33 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 3