Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03815/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03815-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MJT SECURITIES, L.L.C.

Plaintiff,

v.

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No.C-03-3815 CW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS; AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY

(Docket Nos. 73, 100)

MJT has filed a discovery motion, asking the Court to compel TD to provide further

responses to certain interrogatories and document requests. A hearing on MJT’s motion to compel

was held on February 7, 2007, at the conclusion of which the Court GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part the motion to compel. This order memorializes the Court’s oral ruling made at the

hearing.

The Court rejects TD’s argument that the discovery sought is not relevant. The discovery

has some probative value with respect to TD’s knowledge of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by

JSS. On the other hand, the discovery sought by MJT is broad, and, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b)(2), the Court must balance the benefit and burden of the requested discovery. The

Court concludes that the proper balance is to limit discovery as follows.

By March 9, 2007, TD shall provide discovery which refers to (1) the individualized

valuation of AGS, KFT, and Premier and (2) any individualized valuation of other LMMs, DPMs, or

Case 4:03-cv-03815-CW Document 118 Filed 02/07/07 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

Specialists (if any) that TD purchased or considered purchasing in the JSS and LetCo transactions

during the relevant time period. The Court emphasizes that there need not have been an actual or

completed valuation of a LMM, DPM, or Specialist or a completed transaction; a discussion of a

LMM, DPM, or Specialist’s individualized value is sufficient to make it relevant. 

By March 9, 2007, as part of its discovery responses, TD shall provide a declaration to MJT

identifying all LMMs, DPMs, or Specialists for which there was an individualized valuation (or

discussion of individualized value) and certifying that there are no other LMMs, DPMs, or

Specialists for which there was an individualized valuation (or discussion of individualized value).

TD’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply is GRANTED.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 73 and 100.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03815-CW Document 118 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2