1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

7 Case No. 22-cv-04134-JST

8 IN RE NETFLIX, INC.

STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

9 LITIGATION CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED 10 11

12 13 This case raises similar allegations to the securities class action that is also before this 14 Court, In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-02672-JST. “Courts generally stay 15 a shareholder derivative suit until the culmination of a securities class action when the cases arise 16 from the same factual allegations and the evidence in the former could jeopardize the company’s 17 defense in the latter.” In re STEC, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. CV 10-00667-JVS (MLGx), 2012 18 WL 8978155, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012); see also, e.g., In re RH S’holder Derivative Litig., 19 No. 18-cv-02452-YGR, 2019 WL 580668, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2019). 20 Parties in two recent shareholder derivative cases before this Court have agreed to stay 21 proceedings pending resolution of the related securities class action, In re eHealth, Inc. S’holder 22 Derivative Litig., No. 20-cv-4477, ECF No. 52 at 3, or at least until the Court has resolved 23 challenges to the complaint in the related securities class action, In re Meta Platforms, Inc. 24 Derivative Litig., No. 22-cv-0903, ECF No. 43 at 5-6. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 The parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether a stipulated stay may be entered in 2 || this case. By January 27, 2023, they shall file either a stipulation and proposed order staying this 3 case or a joint written response showing cause as to why this case should not be stayed. Unless 4 otherwise ordered, the matter will be taken under submission without oral argument. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 6 Dated: January 4, 2023 7

JON S. TIGA

8 nited States District Judge 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28