Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-5/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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL 

Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation, Charles Abbe, Jozef Straus and Anthony Muller

(collectively “JDSU”) move to compel further responses to the first set for requests for production of

documents that was served on Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (“Plaintiff”) on

April 8, 2005. Specifically, JDSU seeks production of: (1) documents relating to political contributions by

counsel to the elected official in charge of the fund serving as Lead Plaintiff in this case; (2) statements made

by non-party confidential witnesses; (3) Lead Plaintiff’s communications with its outside investment

advisors; and (4) documents relating to Lead Plaintiff’s publicly-announced policy of “active participation in

class action litigation.” 

On September 20, 2005, the Court held a hearing on JDSU’s motion and now issues the following

Order:

1. Political contributions (request number 22)

Lead Plaintiff stated in a letter to JDSU that the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow

had made no contributions to State Treasurer Nappier or to the Attorney General. See Buckser-Schultz

Decl. Ex. D. At the hearing, Lead Plaintiff represented that neither Goodkind Labaton nor its attorneys

made any contributions to these officials. Lead Plaintiff also stated that no contributions were made by

local counsel, Berman DeValario Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. Therefore, Lead Plaintiff stated that no

responsive documents exist. Accordingly, JDSU’s motion to compel further response to request number

22 regarding direct political contributions is denied. To the extent that JDSU sought documents regarding

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 349 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 3
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

indirect or in-kind contributions, such as to political action committees, these requests are vague and

overbroad. 

2. Confidential witnesses (request number 43)

JDSU seeks verbatim statements made by confidential witnesses, some or all of whom were quoted

briefly in the amended complaint. Lead Plaintiff identified the confidential witnesses in its initial disclosures,

but states that there were no verbatim witness statements. Rather, the witnesses are partially quoted in

memoranda prepared by attorneys or by private investigators working for the attorneys, which Lead

Plaintiff argues are protected by the work product doctrine. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S.

383, 400 (1981) (attorney memoranda based on witness oral statements are protected by the work

product doctrine). Counsel for Lead Plaintiff stated at the hearing that each memoranda containing

statements by confidential witnesses was only two to three pages long with very few quoted phrases or

sentences. He stated that there were no tape recordings of the witnesses’ statements. Nor were there any

signed statements. Accordingly, JDSU’s motion to compel production of the attorney and private

investigator memoranda is denied because the documents are protected by the work product doctrine and

JDSU has not made the heightened showing of substantial need to overcome that protection required by

Upjohn and its progeny. 

At the hearing, JDSU sought discovery of e-mail messages between counsel and confidential

witnesses that Lead Plaintiff had recently discovered. Lead Plaintiff stated that the messages consisted of

e-mails from counsel to the witness as well as e-mails containing the witness’ response to counsel. Lead

Plaintiff contends that these e-mails are protected by the work product doctrine. Only the e-mail messages

from counsel to the witness are protected by the work product doctrine and JDSU has not demonstrated

substantial need for those documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). E-mail messages from the witness to

counsel, however, must be produced because they are verbatim statements by the witness that reflect the

witnesses’, not counsel’s, mental impressions. 

3. Outside investment advisors

This category of documents is no longer at issue because Lead Plaintiff has produced all responsive

documents. Therefore, JDSU’s motion to compel those communications is denied as moot. 

4. Documents regarding litigation policy (request numbers 40 and 41)

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 349 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 3
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

These document requests are overbroad and vague, and their limited relevance is outweighed by

the burdensomeness of searching for them. This is the type of information JDSU can better seek through

deposition, rather than through a document request. If a deposition reveals a more specific, narrow

document or set of documents that are relevant, JDSU can request them. Accordingly, JDSU’s motion to

compel further response to these requests is denied.

5. Privilege log

Lead Plaintiff shall create forthwith a privilege log as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(b)(5) and paragraph five of this Court’s Standing Order. The parties shall meet and confer regarding

the scope of the privilege log in light of the guidance given by the Court at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 349 Filed 09/23/05 Page 3 of 3