Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-06198-MHP

Document 26

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GILBERT R. SEROTA (No. 75305) Email: [email protected] MARK A. SHEFT (No. 183732) Email: [email protected] MICHAEL L. GALLO (No. 220552) Email: [email protected] HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: 415/434-1600 Facsimile: 415/217-5910 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS LLC and THOMAS WEISEL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and THOMAS WEISEL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, an Indian company, Plaintiffs, v. BNP PARIBAS, a French corporation, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES (ASIA) LIMITED, a Hong Kong company, and PRAVEEN CHAKRAVARTY, an individual, Defendants.

No. CV-07-06198 MHP Action Filed: December 6, 2007 PLAINTIFFS AND BNP PARIBAS DEFENDANTS' STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AND VACATING HEARING DATE (Civil L. R. 6-2)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

C-07-6198 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-06198-MHP

Document 26

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and Thomas Weisel International Private Limited (collectively "TWP") and Defendants BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas Securities (Asia) Limited (collectively "the BNP Paribas Defendants"; along with TWP, "the Parties") stipulated--and the Court later ordered--that the Court would hear and resolve the BNP Paribas Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens (the "Jurisdiction Motion") before considering challenges to the sufficiency of the claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint (see Docket Entry No. 13); WHEREAS, the Stipulation and Order ("Stipulation") provides that "If TWP undertakes jurisdictional discovery--whether by consent or leave of Court--the parties will meet and confer in good faith to consider whether it is necessary to revise or extend the briefing and hearing schedule set forth above"; WHEREAS, on March 7, 2008, the BNP Paribas Defendants filed and served their Jurisdiction Motion; WHEREAS, the Parties now have met and conferred to discuss (i) TWP's need for jurisdictional discovery, (ii) whether such discovery would proceed by consent and (iii) the effect undertaking such discovery would have on the schedule outlined in the Stipulation; NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows: 1. Discovery directed to the merits of the issues in the Complaint will be deferred

until the Court decides the Jurisdiction Motion. 2. The Parties may undertake discovery limited to issues raised by the BNP Paribas The Parties' initial

Defendants' Jurisdiction Motion ("Jurisdictional Discovery").

Jurisdictional Discovery shall be limited to requests for documents and interrogatories (the "Initial Jurisdictional Discovery") to be served by March 24, 2008. After receipt of

responses to the Initial Jurisdictional Discovery, TWP may seek to take up to two depositions. If TWP deposes a witness during the Jurisdictional Discovery period, the BNP Paribas Defendants may seek to take one deposition during the same period. Those

depositions may not be necessary, and the BNP Paribas Defendants are likely to object to such depositions. The Parties will discuss the need for such depositions within the period of
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY C-07-6198 MHP

-1-

Case 3:07-cv-06198-MHP

Document 26

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jurisdictional Discovery and seek to reach an agreement that obviates the need for raising this issue with the Court. The Parties may not undertake additional Jurisdictional Discovery without mutual consent and/or leave of Court. 3. The Parties retain the right to object to any particular Jurisdictional Discovery

request. The Parties shall meet and confer promptly and in good faith to resolve issues and objections that arise concerning Jurisdictional Discovery, and reserve their rights to litigate unresolved issues and objections. The Parties agree that any motions related to issues and objections arising during Jurisdictional Discovery may be heard on shortened time. 4. The hearing date of the Jurisdiction Motion, currently noticed for April 28, 2008,

shall be taken off calendar to allow for the completion of Jurisdictional Discovery. After the Parties have resolved any discovery disputes and completed such discovery, they will meet and confer to discuss a schedule for the balance of the briefing and propose to the Court a mutually acceptable briefing and hearing date on the Jurisdiction Motion. In all events, absent the Parties' mutual consent or leave of Court, the hearing on the Jurisdiction Motion will occur no later than July 28, 2008. 5. The Parties will not be required to serve Initial Disclosures until after the Court

decides the Jurisdiction Motion, and will meet and confer at that time regarding an agreeable disclosure deadline. 6. TWP believes the Parties and the Court would benefit from holding a Case

Management Conference on March 31, 2008, as provided in the December 28, 2007 Clerk's Notice and the Stipulation. TWP also believes the Parties' Joint Case Management

Conference Statement, which would be filed on March 21 (as previously ordered), and this stipulation and [proposed] order should constitute the Discovery Plan that is due on March 24, 2008. 7. Because all discovery directed to the merits of the issues in the Complaint will be

deferred until after the Court decides the Jurisdiction Motion, the BNP Paribas Defendants prefer that the Court postpone the Case Management Conference (and related deadlines) until after it decides the Jurisdiction Motion.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY C-07-6198 MHP

-2-

Case 3:07-cv-06198-MHP

Document 26

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8. effect.

All other deadlines and obligations set forth in the Stipulation will remain in

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED: GILBERT R. SEROTA MARK A. SHEFT MICHAEL L. GALLO HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation By: /s/ GILBERT R. SEROTA Attorneys for Plaintiffs THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS LLC and THOMAS WEISEL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED JOSEPH E. ADDIEGO, III DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP LEIV BLAD CLIFFORD CHANCE By: JOSEPH E. ADDIEGO, III Attorneys for Defendants BNP PARIBAS and BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES (ASIA) LIMITED

Dated: March 20, 2008

Dated: March

, 2008

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

C-07-6198 MHP

-3-

Case 3:07-cv-06198-MHP

Document 26

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. ADDITIONALLY, THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL PROCEED ON MARCH 31, 2008 AT 4:00 P.M., AS SET FORTH IN THE DECEMBER 28, 2007 CLERK'S NOTICE AND THE PRIOR STIPULATION AND ORDER. OR THE MARCH 31, 2008 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED UNTIL A DATE TO BE SET AFTER THE COURT DECIDES THE JURISDICTION MOTION. Dated: March ___, 2008

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

C-07-6198 MHP

-4-