Peter Schuman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al

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
1 Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG
Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Reopen Discovery
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., SBN 00504800
Mark G. Kisicki (CA SBN 150057)
mark.kisicki@ogletreedeakins.com
Elizabeth M. Soveranez (AZ SBN 024009) admitted pro hac vice
elizabeth.soveranez@ogletreedeakins.com
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel.: 602.778.3700
Fax: 602.778.3750
Mark Schmidtke (IN SBN 1733-45) admitted pro hac vice
56 S. Washington Street, Suite 302
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Tel.: 219.242.8668
Fax: 219.242.8669
mark.schmidtke@ogletreedeakins.com
Erika L. Leonard (GA SBN 565965) admitted pro hac vice
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150
Austin, TX 78701
Tel.: 512.344.4700
Fax: 512.344.4701
erika.leonard@ogletree.com
Attorneys for Defendants
(Counsel for Plaintiffs listed on the next page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
PETER SCHUMAN, an individual, and
WILLIAM COPLIN, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED, a corporation;
ATMEL CORPORATION, a corporation;
and ATMEL CORPORATION U.S.
SEVERANCE GUARANTEE BENEFIT
PROGRAM, an employee benefit plan,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:16-CV-05544-HSG
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER TO REOPEN
DISCOVERY
Case 4:16-cv-05544-HSG Document 234 Filed 03/16/26 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
2 Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG
Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Reopen Discovery
Michael Rubin (SBN 80618)
mrubin@altber.com
Matthew Murray (SBN 271461)
mmurray@altber.com
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 421-7151
Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
Cliff Palefsky (SBN 77683)
cp@mhpsf.com
Keith Ehrman (SBN 106985)
keith@mhpsf.com
MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
535 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 421-9292
Facsimile: (415) 403-0202
William B. Reilly (SBN 177550)
Law Office of William Reilly
86 Molino Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: (415) 225-6215
Facsimile: (415) 634-2897
bill@williambreilly.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 4:16-cv-05544-HSG Document 234 Filed 03/16/26 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
3 Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG
Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Reopen Discovery
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDENTS TO RESPOND
TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
The parties stipulate and jointly ask the Court to extend Defendants’ deadline to reply
to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (“Motion”) by
one week. If granted by the Court, Defendants’ reply will be due on March 27, 2026, rather
than on the current deadline of March 20, 2026. This one-week extension will not delay the
resolution of the Motion, as the current hearing date is April 16, 2026, 20 days after the new
deadline for the reply proposed in this request.
This is the parties’ second request to extend the briefing deadlines on this Motion.
The first request was in response to Plaintiffs asking Defendants for a two-week extension
of their deadline to oppose the Motion. Defendants agreed, and the parties filed that
stipulated extension [ECF 229] request on February 12, 2026. The Court granted it the next
day. [ECF 230.] The parties have also previously stipulated or filed unopposed motions to
modify various deadlines in this case, which the Court granted. See, ECF 20, 21, 36, 37, 65,
66, 78, 79, 129, 132, 141, 142, 151, 152, 219, and 220.
Defendants sought this extension because of the scheduling conflicts of the two
attorneys primarily responsible for drafting the Motion and this reply, Elizabeth Soveranez
and Erika Leonard. On March 9, 2026, Ms. Soveranez unexpectedly had to travel out of
state to assist on an emergency matter for another client. She is not scheduled to return to
Arizona until March 20, 2026. Beginning tomorrow through next week, Ms. Leonard’s
children are on spring break and she will not be working due to family commitments.
Case 4:16-cv-05544-HSG Document 234 Filed 03/16/26 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
4 Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG
Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Reopen Discovery
Dated: March 13, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
By: /s/ Mark G. Kisicki
Mark G. Kisicki
Elizabeth M. Soveranez
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Mark Schmidtke
56 S. Washington Street, Suite 302
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Erika L. Leonard
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150
Austin, TX 78701
Attorneys for Defendants
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
MICHAEL RUBIN
MATTHEW J. MURRAY
MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
CLIFF PALEFSKY
KEITH EHRMAN
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM REILLY
WILLIAM REILLY
By: /s/ Michael Rubin (w/ permission)
Michael Rubin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) E-Signature Attestation
I attest that each of the other Signatories have concurred in the filing of this
document.
/s/ Mark G. Kisicki
Mark G. Kisicki
Case 4:16-cv-05544-HSG Document 234 Filed 03/16/26 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
5 Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG
Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Reopen Discovery
Order
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
THE HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Court Judge
Northern District of California
3/16/2026
Case 4:16-cv-05544-HSG Document 234 Filed 03/16/26 Page 5 of 5