JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

Lead Plaintiff PGGM Vermogensbeheer B.V. ("Lead Plaintiff" or "PGGM"), together with Defendants Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP" or the "Company") and Margaret C. Whitman ("Whitman") (collectively, "Defendants"), respectfully submit this Joint Case Management Statement in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 26(f) and the Local Rules and Standing Orders of this Court. In accordance with the Parties' Stipulation Regarding Time to Answer (Docket ("Dkt.") No. 203) the Parties held the initial Rule 26(f) Conference on January 28, 2014, as well as ongoing meet and confers over the subsequent three months, as summarized below.

INFORMATION REQUESTED BY STANDING ORDER REGARDING CONTENTS OF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1. Jurisdiction and Service

Based on allegations of violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Lead Plaintiff asserts that this Court's jurisdiction is conferred by §27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78aa. Defendants do not contest subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or venue. No parties remain to be served.

2. Description of the Case

a. Date Case Was Filed

This is a consolidated putative securities class action. The first complaint was filed on November 26, 2012 captioned as Nicolow v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al., No. 3:12-cv-05980-CRB. Dkt. No. 1. On March 4, 2013, this Court entered an order consolidating related cases under the caption In re HP Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-cv-05980-CRB. Dkt. No. 90. On May 3, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws ("Complaint"). Dkt. No. 100.

b. Parties

c. Summary of Claims and Brief Description of Events Underlying the Action

This is a putative securities class action asserting claims for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Defendants, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired HP's common stock between August 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012 (the "Proposed Class Period"). The allegations underlying the case are summarized in the Court's November 26, 2013 Order Re Motions to Dismiss ("Order" or "Dkt. No. 201"). The Order granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.

d. The Principal Factual Issues in Dispute

In general, the Parties dispute whether Defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions of material fact to the investing public during the Proposed Class Period. More specifically, and without limitation, Defendants dispute Lead Plaintiff's allegations that: (1) Defendants made misrepresentations or omissions of material fact during the Proposed Class Period; (2) Defendants had a duty to disclose the purportedly omitted material facts; (3) Defendants made those alleged misrepresentations or omissions of material fact with scienter; (4) Defendants' alleged misstatements or omissions caused the market price of HP securities to be artificially inflated; (5) members of the putative Class relied on Defendants' alleged misstatements or omissions; (6) the alleged conduct caused any losses to Lead Plaintiff or members of the putative Class; and (7) members of the putative Class were damaged and, the measure of any such damages.

e. The Principal Legal Issues in Dispute

The principal legal issues in dispute include:

1. Whether Defendants violated §10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5;

2. Whether Defendant Whitman violated §20(a) of the Exchange Act;

3. Whether Defendants misrepresented material facts;

4. Whether Defendants omitted to state any material facts that were necessary to make their statements not misleading in light of the circumstances under which they were made;

5. Whether Defendants had a duty to disclose any alleged material omission;

6. Whether any Defendant acted with scienter in making any alleged misrepresentations or omissions;

7. Whether the price of HP publicly-traded common stock was artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions;

8. Whether Lead Plaintiff and putative class members relied on Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions;

9. Whether Lead Plaintiff and putative class members were damaged as a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions;

10. The proper measure of any such damages; and

11. Whether this action may proceed as a class action under Rule 23.

3. Motions

On July 2, 2013, Defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court held a hearing on November 21, 2013. On November 26, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the motions to dismiss as to all Defendants other than Whitman and HP but denying the motions to dismiss as to HP and Whitman with regard to certain alleged misstatements and omissions made beginning on May 23, 2012. On December 24, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a Request for Clarification of the Court's Order Re Motions to Dismiss requesting confirmation as to whether the Order granted in full current HP Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Catherine A. Lesjak's motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order Re Request for Clarification clarifying that the Order had dismissed Lead Plaintiff's claims against Lesjak.

Lead Plaintiff intends to file a Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23 as set forth in the Stipulated Schedule in ¶16 below.

Depending on the outcome in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"), currently pending before the Supreme Court, Defendants have indicated they may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary judgment. Lead Plaintiff's position is that the outcome of Halliburton II has no bearing on the pleadings or summary judgment, as it will be a class certification decision addressing certain aspects of the "predominance" requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

Defendants anticipate filing motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of claims or issues (including motions in limine). Otherwise, the Parties believe that, absent the benefit of discovery, it is too early to determine whether they will file any additional motions.

4. Amendment of Pleadings

The deadline for amending the pleadings is set forth in ¶16, below.

5. Evidence Preservation

The Parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, and have conferred, pursuant to Rule 26(f), regarding the preservation of electronically stored evidence. The Parties have taken all reasonable and necessary steps to preserve evidence, including all electronically stored information ("ESI"), relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action, in compliance with their obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6. Disclosures

By agreement of the Parties, the Parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) on May 15, 2014.

7. Discovery

The Parties satisfied their meet-and-confer obligations under Rule 26(f) and Civil Local Rule 16-3 beginning on January 28, 2014 and continue to discuss the contours and scope of merits discovery. On May 2, 2014, Lead Plaintiff served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants. On May 9, 2014, Lead Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants. No other discovery has been propounded by either party.

a. Depositions and Interrogatories: Although the parties preliminarily disagree about the number of depositions and interrogatories that should be permitted in this action, they have agreed to defer the issue until the case progresses and document discovery is underway and will continue to confer in good faith.1

b. Fact Discovery Cutoff: The cutoff for fact discovery is set forth in ¶16, below.

c. Protective Order: The Parties shall continue to meet and confer on the appropriateness of an order regarding the confidentiality and protection of discovery in this action.

d. Electronic Discovery: Document production shall be made, so far as practicable, in electronic, searchable format. The Parties shall continue to confer on protocols for production of ESI, and shall submit a proposed Protective Order (as discussed above). The Parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and commit to cooperate in good faith throughout the matter consistent with this Court's guidelines for the discovery of ESI.

8. Class Actions

Lead Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). Lead Plaintiff brings these federal securities law claims individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired HP's common stock during the Proposed Class Period, and who were allegedly damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Lead Plaintiff will move for class certification in accordance with the schedule set forth in ¶16.

Defendants dispute that this action is maintainable as a class action. Defendants further believe that, to the extent any class can be certified, the class period should be confined to the period May 24, 2012 through November 20, 2012, given that the Court dismissed all claims based on alleged misstatements and/or omissions made before May 23, 2012.

9. Related Cases

On January 3, 2013, the Court entered a Related Case Order relating this case to the actions captioned Riccardi, et al. v. Lynch, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06003-EJD, Espinoza, et al. v. Lynch, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06025-LHK, Pokoik v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al., No. 3:12-cv-06074-YGR, Bascheri, et al. v. Apotheker, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06091-SI, Bertisch v. Apotheker, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06123-LHK, Laffen, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Plan Comm. Inv. Review Comm., et al., No. 3:12-cv-06199-RS, Lustig, et al. v. Whitman, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06410-HRL, San Jose Division the City of Birmingham Ret. and Relief Sys., et al. v. Apotheker, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06416-HRL, Tola v. Lynch, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06423-JSW, Morrical v. Whitman, et al., No. 3:12-cv-06434-CRB. Dkt. No. 22. On February 11, 2013, the Court entered a Related Case Order relating this case to the action captioned Kotyuk, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al., No. 3:13-cv-00301-EJD. Dkt. No. 77. On February 19, 2013, the Court entered a Related Case Order relating this case to the action captioned Weissmann v. Apotheker, et al., No. 3:13-cv-00557-EDL. Dkt. No. 87.

10. Description of Relief Sought and Damages Claimed

The Complaint seeks to assert claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks: (i) an Order declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23; (ii) damages, including interest; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees; and (iv) such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The calculation of damages in this complex securities fraud class action will be the subject of expert opinion.

11. Settlement and ADR

The Parties shall continue to confer on the appropriateness of settlement and ADR.

12. Whether the Parties Will Consent to a Magistrate Judge for Trial

The Parties do not consent to a Magistrate Judge for trial.

13. Other References

The Parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

14. Narrowing of Issues

The Parties do not believe that it is appropriate to narrow the issues by agreement or stipulation at this time.

15. Expedited Trial Procedure

The Parties do not believe that this case is appropriate to be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64.

16. Scheduling

The Parties' proposed schedule and Discovery Plan is set forth as follows:

17. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons

On February 11, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed its Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-15, certifying that, other than the named parties, it was unaware of any person or entity with an interest to report. Dkt. No. 223.

On February 14, 2013, defendant HP filed its Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, certifying that, other than the named parties, it was unaware of any person or entity with an interest to report. Dkt. No. 80.

On January 30, 2014, defendant Whitman filed her Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, certifying that, other than the named parties, she was unaware of any person or entity with an interest to report. Dkt. No. 221.

18. Miscellaneous Provisions

a. Modifications to the Schedule

All schedules proposed herein are premised on discovery proceeding expeditiously and without protracted disputes over, inter alia, production of documents and witnesses or issues with regard to class certification. In the event of such protracted disputes, all Parties reserve the right to modify or seek to modify the schedules set forth herein.

b. Electronic Service

The Parties shall serve documents, including pleadings, discovery requests, and trial materials, on each other through e-mail or ECF, except to the extent that transmission of any such documents electronically is impractical, in which event service shall be made by hand or through overnight delivery. Service by e-mail shall be considered the same as service by hand.

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER is approved as amended as the Case Management Order for this case and all Parties shall comply with its provisions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.