Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-51/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 GRANTING LEAD

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF

DEFENDANTS JDSU, CHARLES J.

ABBE, AND JOZEF STRAUS

 On November 13, 2006, Lead Plaintiff, the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

(“Lead Plaintiff”), filed a motion for an order ruling retroactively that Plaintiff’s late responses to

certain discovery demands by Defendants JDS Uniphase (“JDSU”), Charles J. Abbe, and Jozef

Straus (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) were timely. Defendants filed an opposition

to the motion on November 16, 2006. The Court deems the matter submitted on the papers, and

determines that no hearing on the matter is necessary.

In its motion, Lead Plaintiff seeks a retroactive extension of time to respond to the following

discovery requests, all of which were served on August 30, 2006: (a) JDSU’s First Set of Requests

for Admission to Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Dennis

McCool; (b) JDSU’s Second Set of Requests for Admission to Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff Houston

Municipal Employees Pension System; (c) Abbe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs; (d)

Straus’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ responses were due on September 29,

2006. The parties met and conferred and agreed in principle that there should be some extension of

time for responding more extensively to Defendants’ discovery requests, but did not reach an actual

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 698 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 4
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

enforceable agreement. Defendants did not agree to grant a full month extension, as Lead Plaintiff

had proposed. Adams Decl., Ex. 7 (9/21/06 letter), Ex. 12 (9/29/06 letter). 

On September 29, 2006, Lead Plaintiff served partial objections and responses to the Abbe

and Straus interrogatories, as well as responses to interrogatories propounded by Defendant Kevin

Kalkhoven. Id., ¶ 9. It appears that after the September 29 date passed, Defendants became less

inclined to grant additional time to respond, particularly with respect to the requests for admission. 

Id., Ex. 6 (9/20/06 letter demanding responses to RFAs); id., Ex. 14 (10/20/06 letter deeming RFAs

admitted).

Lead Plaintiff provided responses to the Straus interrogatories on November 1, and to the

requests for admission and the Abbe and Kalkhoven interrogatories on November 6, one week after

its proposed October 29 response date and five weeks after the original due date. Adams Decl., ¶¶

18, 19. Defendants contend that by failing to serve timely responses to the requests for admission,

Plaintiffs are deemed to have admitted the requests by operation of Rule 36(a), which provides that

“the matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request . . . the [responding party]

serves . . . a written answer or objection addressed to the matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).

In its motion, Lead Plaintiff seeks to apply Civil Local Rule 6-3 to retroactively extend time. 

That rule provides for a motion for a court order enlarging or shortening time, as required under

Local Rule 6-1 for “any enlargement or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline already

fixed by Court order or that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the Court (other than

an initial response to the complaint).” Lead Plaintiff cites Stearns v. Flores, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis

18805 (March 31, 2006), in which the court granted the defendants’ motion for retroactive extension

of time to serve discovery responses, which the defendants filed four and a half months late. In

Stearns, the court reasoned that more time was warranted by the sheer volume of discovery

propounded by the plaintiff, much of which was duplicative and an abuse of discovery. The court

there also found that the defendants did not refuse or fail to respond, but made every attempt to

respond to the plaintiff’s numerous requests and required additional time to respond. Thus, Stearns

suggests that the Court may, under some circumstances, exercise its discretion to grant retroactive

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 698 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

relief from discovery response dates. These circumstances are not fully present here.

Rather than seeking retroactive relief pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Defendants correctly point

out that the better procedural approach would have been for Lead Plaintiff to seek to amend or

withdraw the admissions under Rule 36(b), pursuant to which “the court may permit withdrawal or

amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party

who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice

that party in maintaining the action or defense on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 36(b). Defendants

argue that allowing Plaintiffs’ late responses would prejudice Defendants’ efforts to identify and

narrow the issues for summary judgment and trial. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs served

evasive responses and false denials to the requests for admission, well after the time within which

Defendants could move to compel further responses. Opp. at 4:9-25; Besirof Decl., Exs. 9, 10.

Applying the standard under Rule 36(b), the Court finds good cause to allow Lead Plaintiff

to withdraw or amend its admissions (conditioned on providing further responses, as set forth below)

because (a) the merits of the action would be served by allowing Plaintiffs to respond to the requests

for admission, and (b) Defendants have not demonstrated that they would suffer substantial

prejudice by withdrawing the admissions and giving effect to Lead Plaintiff’s late responses and

objections. See Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The prejudice

contemplated by 36(b) is not simply that the party who obtained the admission will now have to

convince the factfinder of the truth; rather, it relates to the difficulty a party may face in proving its

case, for example by the unavailability of key witnesses in light of the delay.”). 

As to Lead Plaintiff’s late responses and objections to interrogatories, Defendants are correct

that the proper vehicle for relief would be to seek an order, pursuant to Rule 33(b)(4), excusing Lead

Plaintiff’s failure to timely object. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(4) (“Any ground not stated in a timely

objection is waived unless the party’s failure to object is excused by the court for good cause

shown.”). 

Notwithstanding Lead Plaintiff’s poor procedural posture in seeking retroactive relief from

untimely discovery responses, the Court grants Lead Plaintiff’s request as a motion to amend or

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 698 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

withdraw the admissions under Rule 36(b), on the condition that the parties promptly meet and

confer on Plaintiffs’ response to Request for Admission No. 38 and any other arguably inaccurate or

incomplete responses identified by Defendants, and that Lead Plaintiff fully and accurately

supplement its response to Request No. 38 within two weeks from the date of this Order, as well as

any other evasive or inaccurate responses to requests for admission identified after meeting and

conferring with Defendants, no later than three weeks from the date of this Order. The Court further

grants Lead Plaintiff’s request to excuse the untimeliness of its responses and objections to

Defendants’ interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(b). The Court will grant Defendants a reasonable

extension of time to file a motion to compel with respect to any failure to respond to requests for

admission or interrogatories at issue in their motion after receiving supplemental responses and

meeting and conferring thereon.

This order disposes of docket number 669.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 __________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 698 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 4