Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04065/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04065-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 1 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

FRANKLIN B. GOWDY (SBN 47918) 

MICHAEL J. LAWSON (SBN 66547) 

JOSEPH E. FLOREN (SBN 168292) 

BENJAMIN P. SMITH (SBN 197551) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Tel: 415.442.1000 

Fax: 415.442.1001 

E-mail: fgowdy@morganlewis.com 

 michael.lawson@morganlewis.com 

 jfloren@morganlewis.com 

 bpsmith@morganlewis.com 

Attorneys for Defendants KLA-Tencor Corporation, 

Edward W. Barnholt, H. Raymond Bingham, Robert 

J. Boehlke, Robert T. Bond, Richard J. Elkus, Jr., 

Jeffrey L. Hall, Stephen P. Kaufman, Michael E. 

Marks, Dean O. Morton, Lida Urbanek and Richard 

P. Wallace 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IN RE KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

ALL ACTIONS 

Master Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 

12 MOTIONS 

Co-Lead Plaintiffs Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, the Louisiana 

Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, and The City of Philadelphia Board of 

Pensions and Retirement (collectively, “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) and Defendants KLA-Tencor 

Corporation (“KLA-Tencor”), Edward W. Barnholt, H. Raymond Bingham, Robert J. Boehlke, 

Robert T. Bond, Gary E. Dickerson, Richard J. Elkus, Jr., Jeffrey L. Hall, Stephen P. Kaufman, 

John H. Kispert, Kenneth Levy, Michael E. Marks, Dean O. Morton, Stuart J. Nichols, Kenneth 

L. Schroeder, Jon D. Tompkins, Lida Urbanek and Richard P. Wallace (the “Individual 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 2 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

Defendants” and, together with KLA-Tencor, “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned 

counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to court approval, as follows: 

WHEREAS, this action was filed on June 29, 2006 and, following the appointment of CoLead Plaintiffs and an Executive Committee and Plaintiff’s Counsel under the Private Securities 

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class 

Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) on March 6, 2007, 

WHEREAS, the Consolidated Complaint is 183 pages in length, 

WHEREAS, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b), 

14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78n(a), 78t(a), 

78t-1, by, inter alia, engaging in a scheme to defraud by making material misrepresentations 

concerning compliance with the Company's stock option plans, the award and dating of stock 

options, and the Company's financial results, 

WHEREAS, the Individual Defendants are seventeen persons who now are, or at various 

times between 1999 and the present were, directors and/or officers of Defendant KLA-Tencor, 

WHEREAS, all Defendants intend to file motions seeking dismissal of the Complaint in 

whole or in part under the PSLRA, Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and other 

applicable law addressing, what Defendants believe are serious defects in the Consolidated 

Complaint raising substantial legal issues including pleading of scienter, loss causation, 

materiality of the alleged misstatements, and statutes of limitations, among others, 

WHEREAS, Defendants believe that the legal questions presented by their motions to 

dismiss will be substantial and complex, and may dispose of the case entirely or in large part as to 

some or all Defendants, 

WHEREAS, Co-Lead Plaintiffs believe that the Consolidated Complaint complies with all 

applicable pleading requirements and that the Consolidated Complaint does not raise any legal 

issues, including with respect to pleading of scienter, loss causation, materiality of the alleged 

misstatements and statute of limitations, that would result in dismissing, in whole or in part, any 

of the claims asserted, 

WHEREAS, the seventeen Individual Defendants are represented by seven separate sets 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 3 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

of attorneys, and all defense counsel intend to cooperate and coordinate on filing of joint briefs to 

the maximum extent possible and practicable on common legal issues, so as to eliminate 

duplicative briefing of issues affecting multiple defendants, and Defendants anticipate that this 

may require seeking relief from page limitations, which Defendants will request separately if and 

when necessary; 

WHEREAS, depending on what Defendants seek by way of relief from page limitations, 

Co-Lead Plaintiffs may require seeking similar require relief from page limitations in connection 

with their consolidated opposition, which Co-Lead Plaintiffs will request separately, 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ motions to dismiss or other responses to the Consolidated 

Complaint are currently due on April 20, 2007, 

WHEREAS, Defendants believe that, in light of the foregoing factors, it is just and 

appropriate to extend this deadline to May 21, 2007, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs agree with this 

schedule, provided that Co-Lead Plaintiffs have the same length of time to prepare and file a 

consolidated opposition in response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss (e.g., to August 6, 2007, 

assuming defendants file their motions on May 21, 2007), 

WHEREAS, Individual Defendants Robert J. Boehlke, Gary E. Dickerson, Michael E. 

Marks, Dean O. Morton, Stuart J. Nichols, and Richard P. Wallace have been newly named as 

defendants in this action and each of them agrees to waive service of process, subject to the 

scheduling terms of this stipulation and proposed order, 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 

the undersigned counsel for all parties, as follows: 

1. Defendants, and each of them, have appeared in this action such that service of 

process upon them has either been accomplished or waived. 

2. Defendants, and each of them, shall file their Rule 12 motions or answer the 

Consolidated Complaint by no later than May 21, 2007. Defendants are directed to coordinate 

among themselves so as to file consolidated or joint briefs on common issues to the extent 

practicable. 

3. Once Defendants respond to the Consolidated Complaint by filing Rule 12 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 4 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

motions, Co-Lead Plaintiffs will have 76 calendar days to file and serve their opposition to the 

motion(s) and Defendants will have 21 calendar days thereafter to file and serve any reply briefs 

in further support of the motion(s). The parties shall meet and confer and submit a separate 

stipulation and proposed order regarding any requested relief from page limitations in connection 

with the Rule 12 motions and opposition and reply briefs. The hearing date for the Rule 12 

motion(s) will be determined by the Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: March 30, 2007 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

 By: /s/ 

 Joseph E. Floren 

Attorneys for Defendants KLA-Tencor 

Corporation, Edward W. Barnholt, H. Raymond 

Bingham, Robert J. Boehlke, Robert T. Bond, 

Richard J. Elkus, Jr., Jeffrey L. Hall, Stephen P. 

Kaufman, Michael E. Marks, Dean O. Morton, 

Lida Urbanek and Richard P. Wallace

I, Joseph E. Floren, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I 

hereby attest that each of the 7 signatories identified below has concurred in this filing. 

DATED: April 11, 2007 BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO 

 BURT & PUCILLO 

 JOSEPH J. TABACCO, JR. 

 CHRISTOPHER T. HEFFELFINGER 

 NICOLE LAVALEE 

 LESLEY HALE 

 

 By: /s/ 

 Nicole Lavallee 

 

 425 California Street, Suite 2100 

 San Francisco, CA 94104-2205 

 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 

 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 

 Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and Liaison 

Counsel 

KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 

 Denis F. Sheils 

Joseph C. Kohn 

 William E. Hoese 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 4 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 5 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

 One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 

 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 

 Email: dsheils@kohnswift.com 

 Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com 

 Email: whoese@kohnswift.com 

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 

Sherrie R. Savett 

Douglas M. Risen 

1622 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 875-3000 

Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 

Email: ssavett@bm.net 

Email: drisen@bm.net 

TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS LLC 

Kenneth I. Trujillo 

Ira Neil Richards 

Kathryn C. Harr 

1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 731-9004 

Facsimile: (215) 731-9044 

Email: KITrujillo@trrlaw.com 

Email: ira@trrlaw.com 

Email: kharr@trrlaw.com 

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee 

DATED: April 2, 2007 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

 WALTER F. BROWN, JR. 

 ROBERT P. VARIAN

 By: /s/ 

 Robert P. Varian 

405 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Tel. 415-773-5700 

Fax: 415-773-5759 

Attorneys for Defendant Gary Dickerson 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 5 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 6 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

DATED: April 2, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER 

 CRAIG D. MARTIN 

 K.C. ALLAN WALDRON

 By: /s/ 

 Craig D. Martin 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 238-7522 

Attorneys for Defendant John H. Kispert 

DATED: April 2, 2007 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 

 PATRICK D. ROBBINS 

 JEFFREY S. FACTER 

 MARY MOYCIK 

 By: /s/ 

 Jeffrey S. Facter 

525 Market Street, Suite 1500 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 616-1100 

Facsimile: (415) 616-1199 

Attorneys for Defendant Kenneth Levy 

DATED: April 3, 2007 LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. BELNICK, LLC 

 MARK A. BELNICK (admitted pro hac vice) 

 

 By: /s/ 

 Mark A. Belnick 

120 West 45th Street, Suite 1700B 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: 646-453-2901 

Fax: 646-453-2908 

CHRISTOPHER D. KERCHER (pro hac vice) 

 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

590 Madison Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Tel 212-872-1000 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 6 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 7 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

STEVEN S. KAUFHOLD 

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

580 California Street, 15th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: 415-765-9500 

Fax: 415-765-9501 

Attorneys for Defendant Stuart J. Nichols 

DATED: April 10, 2007 DLA PIPER US LLP 

 SHIRLI FABBRI WEISS 

 DAVID A. PRIEBE 

 

 By: /s/ 

 David A. Priebe 

2000 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, California 94303 

Telephone: (650) 833-2056 

Facsimile : (650) 833-2001 

Attorneys for Defendant Kenneth L. Schroeder 

DATED: April 3, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP MICHAEL J. SHEPARD 

 WARRINGTON S. PARKER, III 

 By: /s/ 

 Michael J. Shepard 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 772-6000 

Facsimile: (415) 772-6268 

Attorneys for Defendant Jon D. Tompkins 

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 7 of 8
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 AND [PRPD] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS 

1-SF/7521507.1 8 USDC Case No. C 06-4065 MJJ 

O R D E R

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE 

COURT ORDERS:

1. All Defendants have appeared in this action such that service of process upon them 

has either been accomplished or waived. 

2. Defendants shall file their Rule 12 motions or answer the Consolidated Complaint 

by no later than May 21, 2007. Defendants are directed to coordinate among themselves so as to 

file consolidated or joint briefs on common issues to the extent practicable. 

3. Once Defendants respond to the Consolidated Complaint by filing Rule 12 

motions, Co-Lead Plaintiffs will have 76 calendar days to file and serve their opposition to the 

motion(s) and Defendants will have 21 calendar days thereafter to file and serve any reply briefs 

in further support of the motion(s). The parties shall meet and confer and submit a separate 

stipulation and proposed order regarding any requested relief from page limitations in connection 

with the Rule 12 motions and opposition and reply briefs. The hearing date for the Rule 12 

motion(s) will be determined by the Court. 

Dated: April _____, 2007 

Hon. Martin J. Jenkins 

United States District Judge 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 AT 2:00 

P.M. (SPECIAL SETTING) 

THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

16 OF TUES., MAY 15, 2007 IS VACATED.

Case 3:06-cv-04065-CRB Document 100 Filed 04/18/07 Page 8 of 8