Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04312/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04312-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

OHS West:260802971.1

STIPULATION REGARDING NVIDIA’S RESPONSE

TO SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED

COMPLAINT C 08-04312 JW

ROBERT P. VARIAN (STATE BAR NO. 107459)

rvarian@orrick.com

JAMES N. KRAMER (STATE BAR NO. 154709)

jkramer@orrick.com

JUSTIN M. LICHTERMAN (STATE BAR NO. 225734)

jlichterman@orrick.com

JOSHUA D. WATTS (STATE BAR NO. 240977)

jwatts@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1-415-773-5700

Facsimile: +1-415-773-5759

Attorneys for Defendant

NVIDIA CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

The NVIDIA GPU Litigation

Case No. C 08-04312 JW

STIPULATION REGARDING

NVIDIA’S RESPONSE TO SECOND

AMENDED CONSOLIDATED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:08-cv-04312-JW Document 170 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

OHS West:260802971.1 - 1 -

STIPULATION REGARDING NVIDIA’S RESPONSE

TO SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED

COMPLAINT C 08-04312 JW

WHEREAS, this Court in its Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss dated November 19, 2009 directed Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended

Consolidated Complaint on or before December 14, 2009;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on December

14, 2009;

WHEREAS, NVIDIA Corporation’s (“NVIDIA’s”) response to the Second Amended

Consolidated Complaint must currently be filed by December 31, 2009;

WHEREAS, the parties are actively engaged in mediation as a possible resolution to this

action and participated in their first mediation session on December 16, 2009;

WHEREAS, the parties currently have scheduled on January 8, 2009 a follow-up call with

their mediator, the Honorable Layn R. Philips (Ret.), in order to further such discussions;

WHEREAS, in light of the holiday season, NVIDIA has scheduling issues which impact

its ability to respond to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint by December 31, 2009;

WHEREAS, an extension until January 15, 2010 for NVIDIA’s response to the Second

Amended Consolidated Complaint would allow the parties further opportunities to explore

mediation as a means of resolving this action before responding to the Second Amended

Consolidated Complaint; and

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and NVIDIA,

through their counsel of record and Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs, that NVIDIA may

respond to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint by January 15, 2010.

Dated: December 30, 2009 ROBERT P. VARIAN

JUSTIN M. LICHTERMAN

JOSHUA D. WATTS

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

/s/ Joshua D. Watts

JOSHUA D. WATTS

Attorneys for Defendant

NVIDIA CORPORATION

Case 5:08-cv-04312-JW Document 170 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3
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

OHS West:260802971.1 - 2 -

STIPULATION REGARDING NVIDIA’S RESPONSE

TO SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED

COMPLAINT C 08-04312 JW

Dated: December 30, 2009 JEFF S. WESTERMAN

SABRINA S. KIM

Millberg LLP

/s/ Jeff S. Westerman

JEFF S. WESTERMAN

Interim Lead Class Counsel for

Plaintiffs and All Others Similarly Situated

The filer attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from

each of the other signatories, or from the single signatory (in the case, e.g., of a declaration)

which shall serve in lieu of their signature(s) on the document.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATE:__________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

February 3, 2010 

Case 5:08-cv-04312-JW Document 170 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3