UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

ROBERT J. MEYER, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE ST. JOE COMPANY, WILLIAM 

BRITTON GREENE, WILLIAM S. 

McCALMONT, PETER S. RUMMELL, 

JANNA L. CONNOLLY, MICHAEL L. 

AINSLIE, HUGH M. DURDEN, THOMAS 

A. FANNING, HARRY H. FRAMPTON, 

III, ADAM W. HERBERT, JR., DELORES 

M. KESLER, JOHN S. LORD, WALTER 

L. REVELL, WILLIAM H. WALTON, III, 

DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC. 

and KPMG LLP, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 3:10-cv-00452-RS/EMT 

CLASS ACTION

JOINT MOTION REQUESTING 

RELIEF FROM THE INITIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 8
- 1 - 

Named plaintiffs Robert J. Meyer and Steven L. Weissman, lead plaintiff movants 

Gerald L. Hess (“Hess”), Richard L. Kneisel (“Kneisel”), and the City of Southfield Fire and 

Police Retirement System (“City of Southfield”), and Defendants The St. Joe Company, 

William Britton Greene, William S. McCalmont, Peter S. Rummell, Janna L. Connolly, 

Michael L. Ainslie, Hugh M. Durden, Thomas A. Fanning, Harry H. Frampton, III, Adam 

W. Herbert, Jr., Delores M. Kesler, John S. Lord, Walter L. Revell, William H. Walton, III, 

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and KPMG LLP (collectively, “Defendants”) jointly move 

for an order (1) relieving all parties from complying with the Initial Scheduling Order 

(“Order”) entered December 17, 2010 until 14 days following a decision on Defendants’ 

motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint and (2) resetting the deadlines in the 

Order following a decision on Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consolidated 

complaint: 

1. The Court’s Order provides certain deadlines related to discovery and pre-trial 

matters, including deadlines for the parties to, inter alia, confer and file a joint discovery 

report to the Court pursuant to Rule 26(f), provide disclosures required by Rules 26(a)(1) and 

(a)(2), and file any summary judgment motions after the close of discovery. In addition, the 

Order sets a discovery deadline of May 31, 2011, and trial is currently scheduled for August 

22, 2011 or September 12, 2011. See Dkt. No. 14. 

2. This consolidated action is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 for claims arising under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78(t)(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 

240.10b-5, as well as Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 2 of 8
- 2 - 

§§ 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o. Accordingly, this action is subject to the requirements of the 

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”). 

3. Certain provisions of the PSLRA impact the litigation of this action, 

particularly at its earliest stages. For instance, the PSLRA provides a procedure for the 

appointment of lead plaintiff and selection of lead counsel. See 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3). 

Competing motions have been filed in this regard. On January 3, 2011, movants Hess and 

Kneisel requested appointment as lead plaintiff with Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & 

Check, LLP and Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP to serve as their co-lead 

counsel. That same day, the City of Southfield filed a separate motion seeking appointment 

as lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and 

Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. No appointment has been made at this time. 

4. However, upon appointment, as in most securities fraud actions, the lead 

plaintiff will likely file a detailed consolidated complaint subject to heightened pleading 

standards under the PSLRA. See 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(1)-(2). As a result of these procedural 

requirements, consolidated complaints are often lengthy and complex, containing detailed 

factual allegations resulting from extensive background investigations conducted by lead 

plaintiffs and their counsel. Moreover, defendants typically move to dismiss securities fraud 

complaints based upon the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standards. 

5. The PSLRA also mandates an automatic stay of discovery during the 

pendency of any motion to dismiss. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(3)(B). As one or more of the 

Defendants in this action anticipates filing a motion to dismiss, the PSLRA’s automatic 

discovery stay likely conflicts with those provisions of the Court’s Order identified above. 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 3 of 8
- 3 - 

As a result, the parties seek relief from the Order commensurate with the requirements of the 

PSLRA. 

6. Additionally, the Order provides for the filing of time records in actions 

where attorneys’ fees may be sought from the opposing party pursuant to a statute, contract, 

or law. In securities fraud class actions such as this, where, if a settlement is reached or 

plaintiffs are successful at trial, a common fund would be created for the benefit of the class, 

typically the plaintiffs’ attorneys are paid a percentage of this common fund. See, e.g., 

Camden I Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 773-75 (11th Cir. 1991). Plaintiffs 

seek the Court’s guidance whether the “Attorneys’ Fees Records” provision applies in this 

case given that, should this action be settled or otherwise resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, and 

should a common fund be recovered from Defendants, any attorney fee award will be based 

on a percentage of that fund, and it would appear that this provision is not applicable. 

7. As a result of the current conflicts between the discovery stay imposed by the 

PSLRA and the Initial Scheduling Order, the parties respectfully request relief from certain 

aspects of the Court’s Order. Specifically, the parties request an order (1) relieving all 

parties from complying with the Order entered December 17, 2010 until 14 days following a 

decision on Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint and (2) 

resetting the deadlines in the Order following a decision on Defendants’ motions to dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint. Alternatively, the parties request a status conference with 

the Court to discuss the same. 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 4 of 8
- 4 - 

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court issue an Order 

providing the parties with relief from the Initial Scheduling Order or, alternatively, setting a 

status conference to address these issues at the Court’s earliest convenience. 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDELL LLP 

AMY DESMOND LAMBERTI 

CHARLES ALAN GILMAN 

DAVID G. JANUSZEWSKI 

80 Pine Street 

New York, NY 

Telephone: 212/701-3000 

212/269-5420 (fax) 

 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 

 & DOWD LLP 

PAUL J. GELLER 

Florida Bar No. 984795 

DOUGLAS WILENS 

Florida Bar No. 79987 

SABRINA E. TIRABASSI 

Florida Bar No. 25521 

Counsel for Defendant Deutsche Bank 

Securities, Inc s/DOUGLAS WILENS 

 

CLARK, PARTINGTON, HART, 

 LARRY, BOND & STACKHOUSE 

DENNIS K. LARRY 

125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 

Pensacola, Florida 32502 

Telephone: 850/434-9200 

850/432-7340 (fax) 

 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 

Boca Raton, FL 33432 

Telephone: 561/750-3000 

561/750-3364 (fax) 

pgeller@rgrdlaw.com 

dwilens@rgrdlaw.com 

stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com 

 

Counsel for Defendants Deutsche Bank 

Securities, Inc., The St. Joe Company, 

William Britton Greene, William S. 

McClamont, Peter S. Rummell, Janna L. 

Connolly, Michael L. Ainslie, Hugh 

Durden, Thomas Fanning, Harry H. 

Frampton, III, Adam W. Herbert, Jr., 

Delores M. Kesler, John S. Lord, Walter 

L. Revell, and William H. Walton, III 

 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 

CHRISTOPHER J. KELLER 

140 Broadway 

New York, NY 10005 

Telephone: 212/907-0700 

212/818-0477 (fax) 

ckeller@labaton.com 

Counsel for Proposed Lead Plaintiff 

Southfield Fire & Police Retirement 

System 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 5 of 8
- 5 - 

 

BRYANT AND HIGBY, 

CHARTERED 

CLIFFORD C. HIGBY 

P.O. Box 860 

Panama City, Florida 32402 

Telephone: 850/763-1787 

850/785-1533 (fax) 

 KURKIN FOREHAND BRANDES LLP 

JOHN W. FOREHAND 

Fla. Bar No. 0979813 

800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1-B 

Tallahassee, FL 32303 

Telephone: 850/391-5060 

850/391-2645 (fax) 

 

KING & SPALDING LLP 

JASON RICHARD EDGECOMBE 

JOHN PATTERSON BRUMBAUGH 

1180 PEACHTREE ST NE 

ATLANTA, GA 30309-3521 

Telephone: 404/572-4600 

404/572-5139 (fax) 

Counsel for Defendant KPMG LLP 

 SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER 

 & SHAH, LLP 

SCOTT R. SHEPHERD 

Fla. Bar No. 069655 

NATHAN C. ZIPPERIAN 

Fla. Bar No. 065125 

JAYNE A. GOLDSTEIN 

Fla. Bar No. 0144088 

1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 

Weston, FL 33326 

Telephone: 954/515-0123 

954/515-0124 (fax) 

 

 BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER 

 MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 

SEAN M. HANDLER 

DARREN J. CHECK 

NAUMON A. AMJED 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

Telephone: 610/667-7706 

610/667-7056 (fax) 

 

 POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN 

 & GROSS LLP 

PATRICK V. DAHLSTROM 

MARC I. GROSS 

100 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: 212/661-1100 

212/661-8665 (fax) 

 

 Counsel for Proposed Lead Plaintiffs 

Gerald L. Hess and Richard L. Kneisel 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 6 of 8
- 6 - 

 

 GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP 

CHARLES W. BRANHAM, III 

HAMILTON LINDLEY 

2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: 214/583-2233 

214/583-2234 (fax) 

 

 Counsel for Named Plaintiff Robert J. 

Meyer 

 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 7 of 8
- 7 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 13, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to all counsel of record. 

 s/DOUGLAS WILENS 

DOUGLAS WILENS 

Case 3:10-cv-00452-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 8 of 8