Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD SIEMERS, individually and on behalf of

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO

FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC, WELLS CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, H.D. VEST

INVESTMENT SERVICES, STEPHENS INC., SEI

INVESTMENTS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY,

WELLS FARGO FUNDS TRUST,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04518 WHA

ORDER RE LETTER OF

NOVEMBER 27, 2006

The Court has received a letter dated November 27, 2006, from Howard Rice. 

The Court needs to know the extent to which, if at all, the undersigned’s former firm provided

services directly to the Wells Fargo Funds Management and Wells Fargo Funds Trust

defendants on the matters in litigation prior to August 17, 1999. The undersigned is aware that

his former firm provided services to Wells Fargo prior to August 17, 1999. What the Court

specifically wishes to know is whether any of those services related directly to the matters in

this litigation. To the undersigned’s knowledge, the firm did not provide such services. 

Defendants are ORDERED to advise the undersigned by NOON ON DECEMBER 6, 2006, the

extent to which, if at all, Morrison & Foerster provided services to Wells Fargo concerning this

matter. 

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 161 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Given the lengthy passage of time in this case and the amount of work the Court has

done in this matter, counsel are also ORDERED to advise at the same time why counsel did not

raise this issue long ago. All defendants’ counsel including Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

LLP must respond. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 161 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2