Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WESTLEY v. OCLARO, INC., C11-02448-EMC (NC) (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130503b06 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 01, 2013
Latest Update: May 01, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PARTIALLY STAYING MATTER EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. WHEREAS, on May 19, 2011, plaintiffs Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1) against defendants Oclaro, Inc., Alain Couder, Jerry Turin, and James Haynes; WHEREAS, on September 12, 2011, this Court issued an Order Granting Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel; WHEREAS, on April 27, 2012, lead plaintiff fi
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PARTIALLY STAYING MATTER

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on May 19, 2011, plaintiffs Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1) against defendants Oclaro, Inc., Alain Couder, Jerry Turin, and James Haynes;

WHEREAS, on September 12, 2011, this Court issued an Order Granting Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel;

WHEREAS, on April 27, 2012, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("SAC");

WHEREAS, on September 21, 2012, this Court issued an Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, on January 10, 2013, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration finding that the SAC had adequately alleged claims arising from alleged false statements in May and June 2010 (Dkt. No. 107);

WHEREAS, on January 30, 2013, this Court entered a minute order, that inter alia limited discovery to the issue of scienter with respect to certain statements and setting a discovery cutoff, a deadline for the filing of a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), briefing schedules in connection with defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC and defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to scienter for the May and June statements, and an oral argument date for the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 111);

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2013, lead plaintiff filed a TAC (Dkt. No. 121);

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the TAC (Dkt. No. 130);

WHEREAS, oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC is currently scheduled for May 16, 2013;

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, this Court ordered inter alia, that defendants to produce certain documents by April 24, 2013, and to make a witness or witnesses available for deposition to testify on topics defined in lead plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (Dkt. No. 138);

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed, subject to this Court's approval, to partially stay this matter, including discovery deadlines, until such time as this Court renders a decision on the motion to dismiss in order to obtain greater clarity on the ultimate scope of the litigation; and

WHEREAS, the parties enter this stipulation, not for the purposes of delay, but to efficiently manage this case going forward;

NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

1. All proceedings and deadlines in this matter are stayed, with the exception of proceedings related to the motion to dismiss the TAC, and the discovery to be produced on May 1, 2013, until after this Court decides defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC.

2. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by this Court, the January 30, 2013 Order is hereby modified to provide that (i) the discovery cutoff shall be five weeks after this Court rules on defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC; (ii) defendants' summary judgment motion shall be filed no later than fourteen days after the discovery cutoff; and (iii) a hearing on the motion shall be set for the first Thursday on which Judge Chen is available, at 1:30 p.m., which is at least thirty-five days after the motion for summary judgment is filed.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer