Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-2/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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

Pursuant to parties’ stipulation and this Court’s Order, on August 2, 2005, the parties

submitted simultaneous letter briefs regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Lead Plaintiff to

produce its fee agreement with counsel. The Court held a hearing on this matter on August 16,

2005.

Defendants argue that the fee agreement should be produced because it is relevant to class

certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See, e.g., In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726,

732 (9th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that a lead plaintiff’s fee arrangement “may be relevant in ensuring

that the plaintiff is not receiving preferential treatment through some back-door financial

arrangement with counsel, or proposing to employ a lawyer with a conflict of interest”). In general,

fees agreements are not confidential. However, Lead Plaintiff opposes production of the agreement

at this stage on the grounds that it is not relevant and that absent redaction of portions that could

reveal information about its evaluation of the case, Defendants may gain an advantage in negotiating

settlement or formulating litigation strategy if it is produced. See, e.g., Sanderson v. Winner, 507

F.2d 477, 478, 480 (10th Cir. 1974) cert denied, 421 U.S. 914 (1975) (holding that the fee

arrangement between plaintiffs and attorney was irrelevant to determining whether plaintiffs were

adequate class representatives). 

At the hearing, Defendants argued that the fee agreement is relevant to determine whether

there is a conflict of interest that could affect Lead Plaintiff’s adequacy and typicality as a proposed

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 324 Filed 08/23/05 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

class representative. For example, Defendants hypothesized that the agreement could provide for a

bonus to be paid to counsel if certain individual Defendants personally contribute to any recovery,

thereby reducing the overall class recovery. This showing of relevance at this point in the litigation

is tenuous. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iv). However, Lead Plaintiff agreed at the hearing to

produce the document for in camera review with proposed redactions which address its concerns. 

The Court received the redacted fee agreement on August 19, 2005. The Court has

determined that the redactions are proper. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel production

of the fee agreement is granted in part. No later than August 31, 2005, Lead Plaintiff shall produce

the fee agreement with the redactions to Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 324 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2