JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2011, plaintiff Greg Young filed his Complaint for Violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Jury Demand against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. ("PacBio" or the "Company"), several of PacBio's senior executives and directors (Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes, Brian B. Dow, Brook Byers, William W. Ericson, Michael Hunkapiller, Randall S. Livingston, Susan Siegel, and David B. Singer, collectively with PacBio, the "Issuer Defendants") and the underwriters that conducted PacBio's October 26, 2010 initial public stock offering (J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (formerly Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and Piper Jaffray & Co.) (the "Underwriter Defendants," collectively with the Issuer Defendants, "Defendants") in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No. CIV-509210 (the "Young Action");

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2011, plaintiff Matthew Sandnas filed his Complaint for Violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Jury Demand against Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No. CIV-509259 (the "Sandnas Action");

WHEREAS, on November 23, 2011, Defendants removed both the Young and Sandnas Actions to federal court;

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to remand the Young and Sandnas Actions back to state court;

WHEREAS, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, all Defendants not previously served in the Young and Sandnas Actions accepted service of process and the parties agreed to a uniform response date upon resolution of the Plaintiffs' motions to remand;

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2012 the Court took Plaintiffs' fully briefed motions to remand under submission;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's November 23, 2011 ADR Scheduling Order in the Young Action, the parties' deadlines to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan, to file ADR Certification signed by Parties and Counsel and to file either a Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference is February 24, 2012; and

WHEREAS, the Court's resolution of the pending motions to remand could impact the parties' positions concerning ADR;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective counsel listed below, that compliance with the February 24, 2012 ADR deadlines be deferred pending resolution of Plaintiffs' motions to remand, with all responses to the ADR Order being due within two weeks of resolution of the pending remand motions if the Court denies the remand motions and retains jurisdiction of these actions.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties of operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

I, Mary K. Blasy, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from signatories Nina Locker and Simona G. Strauss. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22nd day of February, 2012 at San Diego, California.