Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20418/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20418-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS ON MOTS. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Case No. C-01 20481 JW 

1 24367/00402/SF/5162900.1

DEAN S. KRISTY (State Bar No. 157646) 

KEVIN P. MUCK (State Bar No. 120918) 

FELIX S. LEE (State Bar No. 197084) 

ALICE L. JENSEN (State Bar No. 203327) 

CHRISTOPHER A. GARCIA (State Bar No. 215184) 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

275 Battery Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 875-2300 

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 

e-mail address: kmuck@fenwick.com

DAN K. WEBB (Pro Hac Vice 2/16/05) 

ROBERT Y. SPERLING (Pro Hac Vice 2/16/05)

ROBERT L. MICHELS (Pro Hac Vice 2/16/05)

RONALD S. BETMAN (Pro Hac Vice 2/16/05)

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

35 West Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703 

Telephone: (312) 558-5600 

Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 

e-mail address: rbetman@winston.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., John T. 

Chambers, Larry R. Carter, Carol A. Bartz, Steven M. West, 

Edward R. Kozel, Donald T. Valentine, Robert L. Puette, 

Judith L. Estrin, Gary J. Daichendt, Donald J. Listwin, Carl 

Redfield and Michelangelo Volpi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

In re CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. C-01-20418 JW

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS. 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS ON MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

This stipulation is entered into by and among: (i) plaintiffs Central States, Southeast and 

Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, Plumbers & Pipefitters 

National Pension Fund, and Alexander Nehring (collectively, “plaintiffs”); (ii) defendants Cisco 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:01-cv-20418-JW Document 454 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 4
FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS ON MOTIONS. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - No. C-01 20481-JW 

2 24367/00402/SF/5162900.1

Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), John T. Chambers, Larry R. Carter, Carol A. Bartz, Steven M. West, 

Edward R. Kozel, Donald T. Valentine, Robert L. Puette, Judith L. Estrin, Gary J. Daichendt, 

Donald J. Listwin, Carl Redfield, and Michelangelo Volpi (collectively, “Cisco Defendants”); and 

(iii) defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”). 

WHEREAS, defendants will be filing motions for summary judgment on or before March 

13, 2006, pursuant to the scheduling order previously entered by the Court; 

WHEREAS, the issues that will be addressed on summary judgment require expanded 

briefing, given the breadth and complexity of the issues addressed, especially inasmuch as: (i) the 

operative complaint is 198 pages long, and contains claims asserted against 14 different 

defendants; (ii) the case involves allegations relating to numerous alleged statements over a class 

period of fifteen months (i.e., November 1999 to February 2001); (iii) all defendants, including 

each of the 13 Cisco Defendants, have issues unique to each of them that require separate 

discussion; (iv) the alleged damages in this action exceed $6 billion; and (v) extensive fact and 

expert discovery has been undertaken in this case over approximately a three-year period; 

WHEREAS, rather than burdening the Court will separate briefs filed by each of the

moving defendants, the parties believe that the interests of judicial efficiency and economy would 

be furthered by the filing of a smaller number of briefs with expanded page limits, and have met 

and conferred on mutually agreeable limitations in that regard; 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the parties that: 

1. The Cisco Defendants shall collectively be permitted to file briefs in support of 

their various summary judgment motions of up to one hundred fifteen (115) pages in cumulative 

length, not including tables, with such pages to be allocated among the Cisco Defendants’ briefs 

in the manner they deem appropriate; 

2. PwC may file one or more briefs in support of its summary judgment motions of 

up to sixty-six (66) pages in cumulative length, not including tables; 

3. Plaintiffs shall collectively be permitted to file briefs in opposition to the Cisco 

Defendants’ various summary judgment motions of up to one hundred fifteen (115) pages in 

cumulative length, not including tables, with such pages to be allocated among plaintiffs’ briefs in 

Case 5:01-cv-20418-JW Document 454 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 4
FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS ON MOTIONS. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - No. C-01 20481-JW 

3 24367/00402/SF/5162900.1

the manner they deem appropriate; 

4. Plaintiffs shall collectively be permitted to file one or more briefs in opposition to 

PwC’s summary judgment motions of up to sixty-six (66) pages in cumulative length, not 

including tables; 

5. The Cisco Defendants shall collectively be permitted to file reply briefs in support 

of their various summary judgment motions of up to sixty (60) pages in cumulative length, not 

including tables, with such pages to be allocated among the Cisco Defendants’ briefs in the 

manner they deem appropriate; 

6. PwC may file one or more reply briefs in support of its summary judgment 

motions of up to forty (40) pages in cumulative length, not including tables. 

Dated: March 1, 2006 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 

By: /s/

Spencer Burkholz 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: March 1, 2006 FENWICK & WEST LLP 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

By: /s/

Kevin P. Muck

Attorneys for Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., John T. 

Chambers, Larry R. Carter, Carol A. Bartz, Steven M. 

West, Edward R. Kozel, Donald T. Valentine, Robert 

L. Puette, Judith L. Estrin, Gary J. Daichendt, Donald 

J. Listwin, Carl Redfield and Michelangelo Volpi 

Dated: March 1, 2006 HELLER EHRMAN WHITE AND McAULLIFE LLP 

By: /s/ 

Carol Lynn Thompson

Attorneys for Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Case 5:01-cv-20418-JW Document 454 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 4
FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FENWICK & WEST LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW

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 MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS ON MOTIONS. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - No. C-01 20481-JW 

4 24367/00402/SF/5162900.1

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: __________________, 2006 ______________________________ 

 The Honorable James Ware 

 United States District Judge 

March 8

Case 5:01-cv-20418-JW Document 454 Filed 03/08/06 Page 4 of 4