Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-91/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 LEAD

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S

APRIL 10, 2007 AND APRIL 20, 2007

ORDERS

On April 10, 2007, the Court granted in part Lead Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and entered

an Order stating, inter alia:

Lead Plaintiff's motion for limited additional discovery is granted as to documents

sufficient to show the use of proceeds from any sale of JDSU securities by

Kalkhoven, and documents reflecting the total values of Kalkhoven's JDSU

portfolio compared to his non-JDSU stock portfolio and other investments during

the relevant time period defined in Lead Plaintiff's requests for production:

January 1, 1999 to the date of the Guay report. 

April 10, 2007 Order at 3:1-5. Defendant Kalkhoven sought reconsideration of this Order, and on

April 20, 2007, the Court modified its April 10, 2007 as follows:

Lead Plaintiff's motion for limited additional discovery is granted as to documents

(such as investment portfolio statements, brokerage statements and trading

records) sufficient to show the use of proceeds from any sale of JDSU securities

by Kalkhoven, and documents reflecting the total values of Kalkhoven's JDSU

portfolio compared to his non-JDSU stock portfolio and other investments during

the relevant time period defined in Lead Plaintiff's requests for production:

January 1, 1999 to the date of the Guay report. Kalkhoven shall produce such

documents to Lead Plaintiff by April 24, 2007. Kalkhoven need only produce

documents that are already in existence, and need not create responsive

documents from receipts or other supporting documents. This Order shall not be

construed to require Kalkhoven to produce documents tracing his personal

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1368 Filed 08/22/07 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

spending, except for very large purchases such as real estate, if any. 

April 20, 2007 Order at 1:20-28. Defendant Kalkhoven did not file objections to these discovery

orders, and instead reached an agreement with Plaintiff regarding which documents would be

produced. In producing documents, however, Kalkhoven redacted all information showing where

the proceeds from the sale of JDSU securities went. Lead Plaintiff filed this motion, arguing that

without this information, it cannot test Kalkhoven’s expert’s opinion that Kalkhoven diversified his

portfolio. On August 21, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Lead Plaintiff’s motion. 

The Court has already determined in its previous order that was not appealed that the

information about Kalkhoven’s diversification, including his use of the proceeds of the sales of

JDSU securities, is relevant for purposes of discovery. By so drastically redacting the documents

and failing to search for others in his custody or control, Kalkhoven has failed to comply with the

letter and spirit of the Court’s Orders. Kalkhoven continues to argue against the relevance of these

documents, but he did not file objections with Judge Wilken to the April 10, 2007 Order that first

ordered production of this information, and the Court has not reconsidered its determination of

relevance. Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance is granted. 

At the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach an agreement on a

workable solution for production of documents sufficient to show Kalkhoven’s use of proceeds from

JDSU securities. The parties agreed that, for the relevant time period, Kalkhoven would produce

unredacted brokerage statements, bank statements showing the transfer of funds with a threshold

amount of $300,000 from the proceeds of sales of JDSU securities and records showing where those

proceeds went. Under the agreement, Kalkhoven would also produce a declaration explaining the

use, to the extent possible, of sums of money in excess of $300,000 that cannot otherwise be traced

through documents. The parties agreed that production would occur no later than September 21,

2007. By entering into this agreement about the scope of further production with Lead Plaintiff,

Kalkhoven has not waived his right to appeal this order. But if Kalkhoven does not appeal, or

//

//

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1368 Filed 08/22/07 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

appeals and the appeal is lost, this Order sets forth the scope of production. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1368 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3