Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-81/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 

This document relates to ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE

On April 13, 2007 and on April 25, 2007, after the close of discovery, Lead Plaintiff

supplemented its initial disclosures, identifying ten additional witnesses. By letter to the Court of

April 30, 2007, JDSU sought expedited briefing on a motion to strike Lead Plaintiff’s supplemental

disclosures as untimely. On May 1, 2007, the Court granted JDSU’s request for an expedited

briefing schedule. On May 2, 2007, JDSU filed a letter brief in support of the motion to strike and

on May 3, 2007, Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides for exclusion of untimely disclosures,

unless the failure to timely disclose was substantially justified or harmless. Yeti by Molly Ltd. v.

Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Lead Plaintiff has

demonstrated both substantial justification and harmlessness, JDSU’s motion to strike is denied. 

First, Lead Plaintiff has provided evidence that it did not learn of the additional witnesses

until after the class notice was published on November 30, 2006, which was after the prescribed time

for supplementing Rule 26 disclosures under the Court’s standing order. See Declaration of Jon

Adams ¶¶ 2, 5. Lead Plaintiff could not have disclosed by that date and was therefore substantially

justified in supplementing its disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(e)(1). 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1125 Filed 05/03/07 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

Second, Lead Plaintiff has agreed to make its witnesses available for depositions to be

completed by June 8, 2007, well in advance of the trial date. These depositions will remedy any

prejudice caused by the recent disclosures. 

As an alternative to its motion to strike, JDSU requested that the Court order these additional

witnesses to appear for depositions in San Francisco and to produce relevant, non-privileged

documents no later than seven days before the date of the deposition. While the Court is mindful of

the cost to JDSU of deposing these individuals in different cities, the Court declines to order these

individual class members to appear in San Francisco on such short notice, regardless of their

individual circumstances. However, Lead Plaintiff shall encourage its witnesses to appear in San

Francisco by promptly offering to pay their reasonable expenses to do so, and shall not discourage

any witness who agrees to appear here. Where practical, the witnesses shall produce relevant, nonprivileged documents at least seven days prior to their depositions. The Court recognizes that

production on this schedule may not be possible for the earliest scheduled depositions, but if not

possible, all efforts must be made to produce the documents as promptly in advance of the

depositions as possible.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1125 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2