1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Case3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document248 Filed10/16/14 Page1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
MARC WOLINSKY (pro hac vice)
GEORGE T. CONWAY III (pro hac vice)
VINCENT G. LEVY (pro hac vice)
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Tel./Fax: 212.403.1000/2000
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
6
7
8
9
10
FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP
NEIL A. GOTEINER, State Bar No. 83524
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel./Fax: 415.954.4400/4480
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
11
12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
IN RE HP SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION
16
This Document Relates to: All Actions
Master File No. C-12-6003 CRB
HP’S OPPOSITION TO COPELAND’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
Dept.: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HP’S OPP. TO
COPELAND’S ADMIN. MOT.
MASTER FILE NO. C-12-6003 CRB
Case3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document248 Filed10/16/14 Page2 of 3
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
Hewlett-Packard Company opposes would-be intervenor A.J. Copeland’s motion seeking
leave to file a brief in excess of the page limit set forth in this Court’s standing order (Docket # 247).
Overwhelmingly, Copeland’s proposed brief makes the same baseless arguments he advanced in prior briefing. For instance, he recycles entire paragraphs from his prior reply brief asserting that publication notice is insufficient in class cases (without addressing the numerous cases finding publication notice appropriate in derivative cases). Compare Copeland Supp. Br. (Docket #2471) at 11, 14, 16-19 (“The Breadth of the Releases and the Defective Notice”); with Copeland Reply
(Docket #232) at 6-11 (same). He repeats nearly verbatim the frivolous claim that Wachtell Lipton
was conflicted in negotiating the settlement because Wachtell Lipton, acting at the direction of the
HP board, achieved a settlement that released individuals whom the board concluded had done no
wrong. Compare Copeland Supp. Br. (Docket #247-1) at 26-30 (“The Conflicts of Interest of
Wachtell and the Board”); with Copeland Reply (Docket #232) at 11-14 (same).
The few “new” arguments that Copeland does make also border on the frivolous. Among
them is the bizarre claim that the settlement is somehow tainted not because plaintiffs lacked adequate information in agreeing to settle the case, but because they actually did their work and obtained discovery. See Copeland Sup. Br. 23 & n.23 (“discovery virtually never commences in complex shareholder litigation until after … plaintiff’s claims have survived a motion to dismiss.”).
Although HP would not normally burden the Court with an opposition to an administrative
motion, HP is opposing Copeland’s motion because his repetitive filing is all of a piece. Copeland
has been engaged in a seemingly endless and unsuccessful litigation campaign against HP dating
back to 2010. See Copeland v. Lane (Copeland I), No. 11-1058-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Judge Davila
dismissed Copeland’s second amended complaint in Copeland I, and explicitly denied him leave to
amend the complaint a third time to add “allegations related to actions HP took regarding its acquisition of Autonomy Corporation.” Copeland v. Lane, 2013 WL 1899741, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. May 6,
2013). In the face of that order, Copeland simply styled his amended complaint a new action
(Copeland II) and sought to have that action related to this action. See Copeland Mot. to Relate
(Docket #130); HP Opp. to Copeland Mot. to Relate (Docket #131); Order Denying Mot. to Relate
28
HP’S OPP. TO
COPELAND’S ADMIN. MOT.
MASTER FILE NO. C-12-6003 CRB
Case3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document248 Filed10/16/14 Page3 of 3
1
2
3
(Docket #133). The Copeland II complaint reasserted claims that had been dismissed in Copeland I
and added the claims that Judge Davila denied him leave to add; Copeland also tacked on a laundrylist of unrelated assertions in the apparent hope that something would stick.1
4
5
6
Copeland’s administrative motion to file an over-long and repetitious brief here should be
denied. If Copeland has a new argument to make about the revisions to the stipulation of settlement,
then surely he should be able to make it consistent with the rules of this Court.
7
8
Dated: October 16, 2014
9
10
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
By:
Marc Wolinsky
George T. Conway III
Vincent G. Levy
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 403-1000
Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
11
12
13
14
15
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP
Neil A. Goteiner
235 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
16
17
18
19
Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
27
In deference to the fact that Judge Davila’s dismissal order is on appeal, the claims asserted
in Copeland I are and have always been specifically carved out of the proposed release here.
28
HP’S OPP. TO
COPELAND’S ADMIN. MOT.
MASTER FILE NO. C-12-6003 CRB
2

Download Report