Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-112/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

[Counsel Listed on Signature Pages] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

 ALL ACTIONS 

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

 ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED 

STIPULATION AND JOINT 

SUBMISSION REGARDING 

PRESENTATION OF DEPOSITION 

TESTIMONY TO THE JURY 

 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

1

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated October 12, 2007 and its instructions at the 

final pretrial conference on October 9, the parties submit this stipulation and joint submission 

regarding the presentation of deposition testimony to the jury. 

I. STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, at the October 9, 2007 final pretrial conference, and in the Court’s Minute 

Order of October 12, the Court provided guidance to the parties regarding the presentation of 

deposition testimony to the jury 

WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred to coordinate a process for the submission of 

their deposition designations to the Court; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their counsel of 

record, that: 

1. A party seeking to present deposition testimony to the jury (the “designating 

party”) shall mark those designations on the deposition transcript and serve that 

document on the opposing party (the “receiving party”) by messenger at least nine 

days before presenting the witness’s testimony to the jury. Plaintiffs shall serve 

copies of their marked designations on both counsel for the JDSU Defendants and 

for Mr. Kalkhoven.1

2. The designating party shall mark its designations on the official deposition 

transcript, and shall mark any corrections that have been submitted by the witness 

(in the form of an errata) on the transcript. If both Mr. Kalkhoven and the JDSU 

Defendants seek to designate testimony from the same witness, they shall submit 

those designations on a single transcript.2

 1

 The documents referenced in this stipulation shall be served on opposing counsel 

between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. While both Mr. Kalkhoven and the JDSU Defendants will 

receive copies of Plaintiffs’ designations, they shall make any counter-designations or objections 

on a single document, as set forth below. 

2

 In light of the Court’s October 16 Order regarding the sequencing of witnesses and 

presentation of deposition testimony, Plaintiffs will provide Defendants with their affirmative 

designations for six witnesses by 9:00 a.m. on October 17. Defendants affirmative designations, 

(Footnote continues on next page.) 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

2

3. The designations shall be limited to the deposition designations already filed by 

the designating party, subject to the disputes set out below. The JDSU Defendants 

and Mr. Kalkhoven may designate from the deposition designations filed on behalf 

of all Defendants. (Defendants filed their designations on September 26; 

Plaintiffs’ designations were deemed filed by the Court on October 3 and October 

9.) Either party may narrow the previously-filed designations. 

4. Plaintiffs will highlight their affirmative designations in blue; Defendants will 

highlight their affirmative designations in pink. 

5. The receiving party shall highlight its affirmative designations, counterdesignations and assert any objections on the same hard-copy transcript provided 

by the designating party. 

6. Plaintiffs shall use orange to indicate their counter-designations; Defendants shall 

highlight any counter-designations in yellow. 

7. The receiving party shall set forth any objections to the designations in the margin. 

Plaintiffs will set forth any objections in blue ink; Defendants will set forth their 

objections in red ink. 

8. No later than 72 hours after receiving a transcript with the designating party’s 

designations, the receiving party shall return the transcript, marked with any 

objections and highlighted affirmative designations and counter-designations, to 

the designating party. If the Defendants are the receiving party, they shall 

consolidate all of their affirmative designations, counter-designations, and 

objections onto the same hard-copy transcript provided by the designating party. 

9. Upon receipt of the marked transcript, the designating party shall have up to 

24 hours to insert any handwritten objections in the margin to the receiving party’s 

(Footnote continued from previous page.) 

counter-designations and objections will be due on Saturday, October 20. Plaintiffs will submit 

the marked transcripts to the Court on Monday, October 22, so that it may rule on any objections. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

3

designations. If Defendants are the designating party, they shall consolidate all of 

their objections onto the same hard-copy transcript. 

10. No later than 9:00 A.M. three days before the designating party presents the 

testimony to the jury, the designating party shall messenger the final marked 

transcript to the Court so that it may rule on any objections. That marked 

transcript shall be accompanied by any exhibits that are referenced in the parties’ 

designations. The designating party also shall messenger a copy of the final 

marked-up transcript submitted to the Court to the receiving party. (If Plaintiffs 

are the designating party, they shall provide copies both to counsel for the JDSU 

Defendants and counsel for Mr. Kalkhoven.) 

11. Upon receiving the Court’s ruling on the parties’ objections, the designating party 

shall be responsible for preparing a single video clip encompassing all affirmative 

designations and counter-designations in the sequence the testimony was given. 

The single video clip shall accurately reflect the Court’s rulings on the 

admissibility of the testimony. The designating party shall provide a copy of the 

video clip to the receiving party by 9:00 A.M. on the day preceding the 

presentation of the testimony to the jury. (If Plaintiffs are the designating party, 

they shall provide copies both to counsel for the JDSU Defendants and counsel for 

Mr. Kalkhoven.) 

12. By no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day preceding the presentation of the testimony 

to the jury, the receiving party shall notify the designating party of any technical 

issues with the tape so that they may be corrected, if possible, before publication to 

the jury. If the testimony is not corrected, the receiving party reserves the right to 

raise an objection with the Court prior to the publication of the testimony to the 

jury.

13. Once testimony from a witness has been presented to the jury by deposition, a 

party may play rebuttal testimony from that witness’s deposition later in its casein-chief, but only if necessary to rebut unanticipated evidence offered by other 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

4

witnesses after the witness’s deposition testimony was presented to the jury. Any 

such rebuttal testimony must already have been designated by the party seeking to 

publish it to the jury. (If by Defendants, in their designations filed on 

September 26, or if by Plaintiffs, in their designations deemed filed on October 3 

or October 9.) Any objections to the rebuttal testimony shall be ruled upon by the 

Court prior to the presentation of the additional videotape testimony. If a party 

designates any such rebuttal testimony, the receiving party may designate counterdesignations to the rebuttal testimony.

II. DISPUTED ADDITIONAL DESIGNATIONS 

Plaintiffs’ View

 Plaintiffs seek to add to their designations a brief section of the October 18, 2006 

deposition testimony of Eldred F. Newland, including 48:17-18; 48:25-49:6. This testimony 

reflects the introduction of Deposition Exhibit 317 (marked as Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit 230). 

While Plaintiffs’ previously-filed deposition designations reflect testimony about this exhibit (at 

Newland 53, 55), the designations omit the introduction of this exhibit at the deposition. 

 Plaintiffs also seek to add to their designations a brief section of the July 17, 2007 

deposition testimony of Gordon Buchan, including 173:23-174:21; 175:2-15, encompassing the 

introduction of Deposition Exhibit 1075 (marked as Trial Exhibit 146), and the witness’ initial 

testimony regarding that document. Plaintiffs have previously filed designations encompassing 

discussion of this document at pages 175, 176, and 179 of Buchan’s deposition. 

Consistent with the Court’s admonition to avoid designating questions with no answers, 

Plaintiffs will add to their previously filed designations any omitted answers to previouslydesignated questions. Plaintiffs will identify any added material to Defendants to ensure their 

opportunity to make any objections. 

 Defendants’ View

Plaintiffs state that they intend to augment their previously-filed designations to include 

questions for already-designated answers, answers to already-designated questions, and 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

5

completely new portions of testimony by Messrs. Newland and Buchan. Defendants do not object 

to Plaintiffs designating questions associated with testimony that previously had been designated, 

as those questions will assist the jury in understanding the testimony. Plaintiffs should not be 

permitted, however, to designate answers where only the questions previously had been 

designated. Plaintiffs argue that they are merely acting “consistent[ly] with the Court’s 

admonition” by adding material that they previously failed to designate — despite representing on 

October 3, 2007 that they had corrected their previously filed designations to ensure that they 

included no more “questions without answers.” Such answers would constitute substantive 

additions to Plaintiffs’ evidence long after the deadline for designating that evidence. 

Similarly, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to designate new portions of the Newland and 

Buchan deposition transcripts. This submission is at least the sixth time that Plaintiffs have 

sought to revise their list of deposition designations, including at least three revisions after the 

Court’s September 26, 2007 deadline. Defendants moved to strike one of those earlier revised 

lists on September 28, but then withdrew their motion after Plaintiffs stipulated that their thenlatest version would be their last. Plaintiffs promptly renounced that stipulation, however, by 

submitting yet another list and moving the Court for an order excusing their delay under 

Rule 16(b). With their latest request to file untimely deposition designations, Plaintiffs do not 

even bother to explain why they were unable to make those designations earlier or why there is 

“good cause” for allowing them leave once again to revise their list. The Court should not further 

indulge Plaintiffs’ repeated refusals to comply with the disclosure deadlines in this case. See, 

e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that 

failure to comply with pretrial deadline may only be excused upon a showing of diligence and 

that “carelessness is not compatible“ with such a showing). 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

6

Dated: October 17, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof 

Philip T. Besirof 

Attorneys for Defendants 

JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef 

Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles 

J. Abbe 

Dated: October 17, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

By: /s/ Howard S. Caro 

Howard S. Caro 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Kevin Kalkhoven 

Dated: October 17, 2007 LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP 

BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO 

BURT & PUCILLO 

By: /s/ Michael W. Stocker 

Michael W. Stocker 

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff 

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust 

Funds 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, PARAGRAPHS 1-13 ARE ADOPTED BY THE 

COURT AS MODIFIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 22, 2007 

 

 HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 7 of 8
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 

 STIP. AND JOINT SUBMISSION RE PRESENTATION OF DEPO. TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2407086 

7

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

I, Philip T. Besirof, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation and Joint Submission Regarding Presentation of Deposition Testimony to the Jury. In 

compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Michael W. Stocker, attorney for 

Plaintiffs, and Howard S. Caro, attorney for Kevin Kalkhoven, have concurred in this filing. 

Dated: October 17, 2007 By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof 

 Philip T. Besirof 

 Attorneys for the JDSU Defendants 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1690 Filed 10/22/07 Page 8 of 8