Opinion
WILSON SONSINI GO0DRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation, STEVEN M. SCHATZ BORIS FELDMAN.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, MARC J. SONNENFELD, Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company.
GREENFIELD & GOODMAN, LLC, RICHARD. D. GREENFIELD, Admitted pro hac vice.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, SCOTT R. SHEPHERD, LESLEY ELIZABETH WEAVER, Attorneys for Plaintiff A. J. Copeland.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP GARRETT J. WALTZER, Attorneys for Defendants Marc L. Andreessen, Lawrence T. Babbio, Sari M. Baldauf, Rajiv L. Gupta, John H. Hammergren, Joel Z. Hyatt, John R. Joyce, Robert L. Ryan, Lucille S. Salhany, and G. Kennedy Thompson.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, JONATHAN C. DICKEY, REBECCA J. LAZARUS, Attorneys for Defendants Raymond J. Lane, Gary Reiner, Leo Apotheker, Meg Whitman, Shumeet Banerji, Patricia Russo, and Dominique Senequier.
ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP, LAWRENCE D. LEWIS, Attorneys for Defendant Mark V. Hurd.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE; CASE SCHEDULE
EDWARD J. DAVIS, District Judge.
Plaintiff A. J. Copeland ("Plaintiff"), nominal defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP" or the "Company"), and defendants Raymond J. Lane, Gary Reiner, Leo Apotheker, Meg Whitman, Shumeet Banerji, Patricia Russo, Dominique Senequier, G. Kennedy Thompson, Mark V. Hurd, Marc L. Andreessen, Sari M. Baldauf, Rajiv L. Gupta, Lawrence T. Babbio, John H. Hammergren, Joel Z. Hyatt, John R. Joyce, Lucille S. Salhany, and Robert L. Ryan (the "Individual Defendants") stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2010 and August 28, 2010, Plaintiff demanded that HP institute litigation against certain of its current and former officers and directors;
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action (the "Complaint");
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2011, HP filed a Motion To Dismiss Complaint As Premature Pursuant To Rule 23.1 (Docket 10) which Motion currently is set to be heard on December 2, 2011;
WHEREAS, the Committee denominated as the Independent Committee of HP's Board of Directors completed its investigation of the allegations made by Plaintiff in his Complaint and litigation demands, and provided its final report to HP's Board (the "Report");
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2010, HP informed Plaintiff that based on the Independent Committee's investigation and recommendation and after careful consideration, HP's Board determined that it is not in the Company's best interest to pursue the claims asserted in Plaintiff's litigation demands and, therefore, the Company will not pursue any of the claims against any of the individuals listed in the demands;
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2011, HP provided the Report to Plaintiff pursuant to a confidentiality agreement;
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2011, the Court directed the parties to clarify whether the Motion to Dismiss will proceed on December 2, 2011 in a brief joint statement filed on or before November 10, 2011 (Docket 48); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The hearing on Nominal Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company's Motion To Dismiss Complaint As Premature Pursuant To Rule 23.1, currently set for December 2, 2011, shall not proceed.
2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including December 2, 2011 to file an Amended Complaint.
3. HP shall have up to and including February 8, 2012 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint.
4. The Individual Defendants need not answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint prior to February 8, 2012; Plaintiff and the Individual Defendants shall cooperate in good faith to negotiate a response date and briefing schedule for responding to the Amended Complaint.
5. This stipulation is without prejudice to any party seeking additional relief via stipulation or court order.
6. In executing this stipulation, the Individual Defendants preserve their rights to object to this action for improper venue and/or lack of personal jurisdiction.
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45
I, Brian Danitz, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that each of the signatories above has concurred in this filing.