Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-18/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-02-01486 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

SPECIAL MASTER

On January 17, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Appointment of Special Master for

electronic discovery issues. Lead Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ Motion. The Court held a hearing

on March 7, 2006. For the reasons stated at the hearing and in this Order, Defendants’ Motion is

denied without prejudice. 

Defendant’s motion is premised on Rule 53(a)(1)(C):

(a) Appointment. . . . (1) Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court may

appoint a master only to: . . . or (C) address pretrial and post-trial matters

that cannot be addressed effectively and timely by an available district

judge or magistrate judge of the district.

The Court also has inherent power to appoint a special master. Active Prods Corp. v. A.H.

Choitz & Co., 163 F.R.D. 274, 282 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (noting that courts routinely appoint

special discovery masters to make factual findings, more frequently in huge environmental

and mass tort litigation). Special masters are to be used sparingly and only where the use of

the Court’s time is not justified. Manual for Complex Litigation Fourth, § 11.52 (Federal

Judicial Center 2004) (“Reference to a special master must be the exception and not the

rule.”). 

 Electronic discovery issues can be complex, but courts routinely handle them

without appointment of a special master. See, e.g., Williams v. Spring/United Management

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 479 Filed 03/08/06 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

Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005) (relying on the Sedona Principles regarding metadata

and holding “that when a party is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are

maintained in the ordinary course of business, the producing party should produce the

electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects to

production of metadata, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the

producing party requests a protective order.”). Here, the Court has already devoted

extensive time to this case and has ruled on issues involving electronic discovery. 

Appointment of a special master would likely cause delay at this point while he or she

became familiar with this case. Further, there has been no serious discovery misconduct

that would justify use of a special master. 

 The Court is willing to make itself available on a regular basis to assist the parties

through the discovery process. To that end, the Court will hold a discovery conference in

this case on April 18, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file a joint discovery conference

statement no later than April 11, 2006, setting forth outstanding discovery issues, followed

by each parties’ position on the issue. If the parties have any dispute regarding technical

aspects of electronic discovery, the parties shall bring their technical experts to the

discovery conference and shall identify them and attach their curriculum vitae to the joint

discovery conference statement. The parties should seek an Order from the Court to bring

in computer or other equipment for the discovery conference. Senior counsel from each

side (Barbara Hart or Anthony Harwood for Lead Plaintiff and Terri Garland or Jordan Eth

for Defendants) shall attend the conference in person. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 479 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2