Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-20/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 FOLLOWING DISCOVERY

CONFERENCE

On April 18, 2006, the Court held a discovery conference in this case. For the reasons stated

at the hearing, the Court issues the following Order:

1. As proposed by Defendant JDS, it shall search its active electronic data for documents

relating to Zbig Sobiesiak and Kumar Visvanatha, and shall produce non-privileged

documents to Plaintiffs. It will do so at Defendant’s expense. Defendant shall also search its

active electronic data to determine whether any of the data pertains to the remaining twentythree people listed by Plaintiffs on page 34 of the April 13, 2006 Joint Discovery Conference

Statement. If that search reveals that little or none of the active data concerns those twentythree people, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss a limited restoration of back up

tapes to conduct sampling of documents relating to some of them. Possible sampling

techniques could include a monthly sample and/or a sample focused on locations other than

Ottawa, which Defendant states would be less expensive to restore, and/or a search regarding

a smaller number of employees. The Court would consider some partial cost-shifting to

Plaintiffs for restoration and perhaps for processing, but not for attorney’s fees, in connection

with this production. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 485 Filed 04/25/06 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

2. Defendant JDS stated at the discovery conference that it was continuing to search tapes from

the San Jose corporate office that may contain e-mail from Kevin Kalkhoven. Defendant

shall complete that search and shall produce all responsive, non-privileged documents to

Plaintiffs at Defendant’s expense no later than May 19, 2006. 

3. Defendant JDS agreed to provide Plaintiffs with the load files with metadata needed to

facilitate Plaintiffs’ electronic coding use on Concordance for the documents produced

through LexisNexis Applied Discovery. See Joint Discovery Conference Statement at 21:6-

16. Defendant shall provide the load files with metadata no later than May 12, 2006. 

Defendant JDS, through its representative from LexisNexis Applied Discovery, represented

to the Court that it estimated that production of this metadata would cost no more than

$10,000. Defendant shall update the Court regarding the precise cost no later than May 3,

2006. The Court is considering having the cost borne by Defendant. First, Plaintiffs have

represented to the Court that they have been unable to search and code the documents

electronically because the documents lacked load files with metadata, even though Plaintiffs

are now using the standard Concordance system. Second, the current estimated cost of

production of the metadata appears to be much lower than the estimate that Defendant

provided to the Court in opposition to Plaintiffs’ October 21, 2005 Motion to Compel

production of metadata: “Due to the size of the JDSU Defendant’s document production, the

inclusion of metadata would increase their processing costs, at a minimum, by tens of

thousands of dollars,” and that “[t]he additional cost to JDSU of producing metadata

associated with these documents would include . . . tens of thousands of dollars in processing

costs alone (835,000 pages at $0.04 per page) . . . ” Def.’s Opp’n at Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at

7:8-10; n. 16 (Oct. 26, 2005). Perhaps Defendant decided to incur the processing costs due

to their own wish to review the metadata. Defendant may file a declaration addressing this

difference if they wish, no later than May 4, 2006. 

4. No later than April 21, 2006, representatives from the parties’ electronic discovery vendors

shall meet and confer to discuss the compatibility of the data that Defendant is providing to

Plaintiffs. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 485 Filed 04/25/06 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

5. No later than May 12, 2006, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs a list identifying by location

where kept in the ordinary course of business and, to the extent possible, the size, date and

content, of the back up tapes that have not been restored. 

6. Plaintiffs may notice no more than five additional depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Defendant, however, may raise specific objections to any

deposition notice.

7. Each side shall be limited to fifty-five depositions, including those already taken and

depositions taken pursuant to letters rogatory, but not including expert witnesses. To the

extent reasonably possible, depositions should be scheduled in geographic clusters to

minimize travel costs. Further, parties shall serve notice of any deposition on the opposing

parties. 

8. Defendant has over-designated documents as confidential in this case. Defendant shall

reevaluate its confidentiality designations and de-designate appropriate documents in light of

the Court’s comments at the hearing. 

9. The next discovery conference is scheduled for May 10, 2006 at 2:15 p.m. The parties shall

file an updated joint discovery conference statement no later than May 3, 2006. In addition

to the issues raised in the updated statement, Defendants shall explain what is involved in

“processing” data once it is restored from back-up tapes. Defendant shall also state what

documents they preserved and in what form for this litigation as of March 2002 so that the

Court and Plaintiffs have a better understanding of what exists currently. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 485 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 3