Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-7/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

As provided in this Court’s September 7, 2005 Order, on October 7, 2005, Lead Plaintiff filed a

letter brief seeking an order requiring Defendants to provide the backup tapes of the Pitre e-mails to Lead

Plaintiff’s electronic discovery vendor, and noticed a hearing for October 11, 2005. The September 7,

2005 Order, which was prepared by Lead Plaintiff and adopted as modified by the Court, contemplated

the filing of a letter brief on this issue on four calendar days’ notice. However, Lead Plaintiff’s decision to

file the brief on a Friday at 5:06 p.m. and to notice the hearing four days later on a Tuesday morning at 9:00

a.m. after a Monday federal holiday flouts the spirit of the Order and discourages the Court from agreeing

to accommodate the parties in the future. Further, Lead Plaintiff’s letter brief extended far beyond the

scope of the September 7, 2005 Order by, inter alia, arguing for production in native format of e-mails

previously produced as PDF or TIFF files; this issue has never before been raised and presents a

complicated question of electronic discovery. 

In Defendants’ letter brief in opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s brief requesting an order regarding

production of backup tapes, Defendants acknowledge that discovery of the e-mails was not completed by

the court-ordered deadline of October 4, 2005, but stated that production of e-mails will be completed no

later than October 19, 2005, which is not necessarily an unreasonable deadline given the unexpectedly high

volume of documents. Therefore, any decision before October 19, 2005 on the issues raised in Lead

Plaintiff’s letter brief would be premature. Accordingly, if Lead Plaintiff believes that issues surrounding the

Pitre e-mails remain after October 19, 2005, it may file a properly noticed motion to compel, which the

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 363 Filed 10/12/05 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

Court will hear on shortened time on the following schedule: the motion to compel shall be filed no later than

October 21, 2005, an opposition shall be filed no later than October 26, 2005, and a reply shall be filed no

later than October 28, 2005. A hearing on the motion should be noticed for November 8, 2005 at 2:00

p.m. 

Also on October 7, 2005, each party filed a letter brief, rather than a properly noticed motion

pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, purporting to be a motion to compel discovery. Rather than submit a request

to shorten time pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, the parties proposed a briefing schedule in those letter briefs

under which the opposition briefs would be due one court day before the hearing and the reply briefs would

be due on the day before the hearing. Not only is this procedure in contravention of the Local Rules, as

well as this Court’s standing order regarding submission of discovery disputes to the Court, but the parties

have allowed insufficient time for the Court to consider these complex discovery matters. Therefore, the

October 7, 2005 letters briefs purporting to notice a hearing for October 18, 2005 are stricken. The

parties may re-file the motions on the same schedule described above with respect to the Pitre e-mails. 

On November 8, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., the Court will also hold a discovery conference during which

the Court, with the input of the parties, will set a discovery schedule. No later than October 28, 2005, the

parties shall file a joint discovery plan. To the extent that the parties truly cannot agree on a discovery plan,

they may file a joint statement setting forth each party’s proposed alternatives and reasons therefore. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 363 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2