Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD SIEMERS, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WELLS FARGO & CO.; WELLS FARGO

FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC; WELLS

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; H.D.

VEST INVESTMENT SERVICES; WELLS

FARGO INVESTMENTS, LLC; STEPHENS,

INC.; and WELLS FARGO FUNDS TRUST,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04518 WHA

THIRD REQUEST FOR

FURTHER BRIEFING

1. Plaintiff’s counsel states (Br. 6): “Furthermore, the use of commissions is

required to be disclosed in the prospectus which investors use to make investment decisions. 

See Hunt, 159 F.3d at 730.” What on page 730 of Hunt sets forth this alleged requirement?

2. Were the broker-dealers here involved fiduciaries for the plaintiffs, actual and

proposed?

3. To what extent are the issues on this motion implicated by the pending Tellabs

case in the Supreme Court?

4. What specific paragraphs in the proposed pleading supports the allegation that

investors were misled regarding directed brokerage? For example, what were investors told

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 216 Filed 01/25/07 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

regarding the selection of broker-dealers? Was that materially misleading? How so? Please

cite specific paragraphs in the proposed pleading. 

5. Each side should respond to any specific points in the opposing side’s last two

submissions that are important and inaccurate. In this regard, plaintiff should address the

following passages in the recent defense submission: Page 2 (ln 27)–3 (ln 5); Page 3 (ln 18)–4

(ln 8); Page 4 (ln 24)–5 (ln 7); Page 6 (lns 18–25); Page 7 (ln 4)–8 (ln 14). The defense should

address Zanford, Warf, and Grandon. Both sides are free to respond to other points up to a total

of ten double-spaced pages. Please respond by TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2007, at NOON. Please

remind the Court as to the substance of the opposing point you are rebutting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 216 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2