Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04134/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04134-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

03

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CASE NO. 5:06-cv-4134-JF 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME 

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Peter A. Wald (Bar No. 85705) 

David M. Friedman (Bar No. 209214) 

Karli E. Sager (Bar No. 234819) 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Patrick E. Gibbs (Bar No. 183174) 

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 328-4600 

Facsimile: (650) 463-2600 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

*filed 4/5/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 SAN JOSE DIVISION 

REBECCA PROCTOR, REX BROOKS, 

JOHN DONOVAN, ROBERT NEEDLES et 

al. on behalf of Siliconix, Inc. themselves and 

on behalf of all minority shareholders of 

Siliconix, Inc., similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC., 

VISHAY TEMIC SEMICONDUCTOR 

ACQUISITION HOLDINGS 

CORPORATION, SILICONIX, INC., 

ERNST & YOUNG, FELIX D. ZANDMAN, 

and DOE 1 through DOE 20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 5:06-cv-4134-JF 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR 

FULFILLING DISCOVERY 

REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINUING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO 

MAY 11, 2007 

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

Case 5:06-cv-04134-JF Document 49 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO 1

CASE NO. 5:06-cv-4134-JF 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME 

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 

The parties submit the following stipulation regarding upcoming case 

management and discovery requirements: 

WHEREAS, Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Amendment to the 

Second Amended Complaint re Ernst & Young and Vishay Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment are scheduled to be heard on May 11, 2007; 

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation staying the 

discovery requirements pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ADR 

requirements under Civil L.R. 16-8(b), (c) and ADR L.R. 3-5(b)-(d) until 14 calendar days after 

this Court rules on plaintiffs’ motion to remand; 

WHEREAS, the Court ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand on February 13, 

2007, making the discovery requirements due on February 27, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding the scope of the 

discovery requirements, and agree that it would serve the interests of economy and efficiency to 

defer these requirements until resolution of Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss; 

WHEREAS, the parties are currently required to file a joint case management 

conference statement no later than March 23, 2007; 

WHEREAS, a case management conference is currently scheduled for April 6, 

2007; 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding the case management 

conference, and agree that it would serve the interests of economy and efficiency to continue the 

case management conference to the same day that Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss and 

Vishay Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be heard; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the 

undersigned, as follows: 

1. The discovery requirements under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and ADR requirements under Civil L.R. 16-8(b),(c) and ADR L.R. 3-5(b)-(d) are 

stayed until 14 calendar days after this Court rules on Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss; 

2. The case management conference that is currently scheduled for April 6, 

Case 5:06-cv-04134-JF Document 49 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO 2

CASE NO. 5:06-cv-4134-JF 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME 

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 

2007, is continued to May 11, 2007. 

Dated: April 3, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Peter A. Wald 

 Patrick E. Gibbs 

 David M. Friedman 

 Karli E. Sager 

By /S/ 

 David M. Friedman 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Dated: April 3, 2007 HENNEFER & WOOD 

 By /S/ (With express authorization) 

James A. Hennefer 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General 

Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding 

signatures, David M. Friedman hereby 

attests that concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained. 

Dated: April 3, 2007 O’MELVENY & MEYERS LLP 

 By /S/ (With express authorization) 

Daniel H. Bookin 

Attorneys for Defendants Vishay 

Intertechnology, Inc., Vishay Temic 

Semiconductor Acquisition Holdings 

Corporation and Felix D. Zandman 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General 

Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding 

signatures, David M. Friedman hereby 

attests that concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained. 

Dated: 4/5/07

IT IS SO ORDERED

___________________________

Jeremy Fogel, U.S. District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04134-JF Document 49 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3