Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-36/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 FOLLOWING AUGUST 3, 2006

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

On August 3, 2006, the Court held a discovery conference in this case. For the reasons stated

at the hearing, the Court issues the following Order:

1. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Defendant JDSU shall provide supplemental responses to

Lead Plaintiff’s interrogatories 3, 5 and 17 no later than August 15, 2006, and shall provide

responses to the remaining interrogatories no later than August 31, 2006. Lead Plaintiff has

withdrawn interrogatories 19-23 and 25, but not the document request in number 23. Lead

Plaintiff has also withdrawn requests for information regarding Defendant JDSU’s fiscal year

2002 with regard to all interrogatories. 

2. The Court agrees that the parties may reasonably exceed 25 interrogatories, but cautions the

parties to use interrogatories sparingly.

3. If a party responds to interrogatories by listing documents, the responding party must identify

those documents with “sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to

identify, as readily as can the party being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). In this case, if the

documents have been Bates-stamped, the responding party shall identify the documents by

using those numbers unless there is good cause not to, which the party must set forth. 

4. Lead Plaintiff’s request that Defendant JDSU respond to interrogatories 1 and 3 with regard

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 563 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 4
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

to former employees who are represented by Defendant JDSU’s counsel is denied without

prejudice. 

5. Lead Plaintiff’s request that Defendant JDSU respond to interrogatories 9 and 11 with regard

to ETEK, OCLI and SDL is denied without prejudice. 

6. Regarding interrogatory 12, Defendant JDSU has agreed to supplement its response by

August 31. Further, the parties shall meet and confer promptly to agree on search terms and

the procedure for running queries on Defendant JDSU’s ERP system. 

7. Lead Plaintiff shall serve responses to Defendant Muller’s interrogatories no later than

September 11, 2006. 

8. As soon as Ernst & Young Canada makes documents responsive to Lead Plaintiff’s subpoena

available for review by Defendant JDSU, Defendant JDSU shall notify Lead Plaintiff, within

one week of production if done in the United States or two weeks if in Canada, whether

Defendant JDSU authorizes production of those documents to Lead Plaintiff, and the scope

of that production. If Defendant JDSU believes that any unprivileged documents should be

withheld from production as nonresponsive, it shall provide Lead Plaintiff with a sufficient

explanation about which documents are withheld and why to enable Lead Plaintiff to

determine whether it agrees that the documents are nonresponsive. 

9. Lead Plaintiff seeks documents in the possession of counsel for Defendant JDSU and ETEK,

OCLI and SDL. Counsel for Defendant JDSU informed the Court that Morrison & Foerster

is already reviewing documents in its possession in response to Lead Plaintiff’s subpoena

and intends to produce responsive non-privileged documents. Similarly, no later than August

3, 2006, Defendant JDSU’s counsel shall contact the law firms of Wilson Sonsini, Collette &

Erickson, and Sullivan & Cromwell, and ask them promptly to provide documents

responsive to Lead Plaintiff’s subpoenas to Defendant JDSU’s counsel for review and

production as soon as possible. 

10. Any party receiving documents pursuant to a subpoena, including a subpoena that is

withdrawn or adjourned, within ten days of receiving the documents, shall provide all other

parties an opportunity to inspect and copy the documents. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 563 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 4
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

11. No later than August 4, 2006, Lead Plaintiff shall provide to Defendant JDSU a list that

matches the names of its Confidential Witnesses to the numbered Confidential Witnesses in

the complaint. 

12. No later than the next Friday after one week of depositions in this case, Defendant JDSU

shall identify for Lead Plaintiff any additional depositions that it intends to take. This

deadline shall also apply to any party which changes its previously produced list of proposed

deponents based on depositions as they are taken. 

13. The Court clarifies that Lead Plaintiff may take up to five Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of

Defendant JDSU, and those depositions count against its total allocation of fifty-five nonexpert depositions per side. Each Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice constitutes one deposition. 

Lead Plaintiff may also take Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of third parties, which count against

its total allocation of non-expert depositions. 

14. No later than August 10, 2006, Lead Plaintiff shall provide to Defendant JDSU the

documents and information that it used as the basis for the spreadsheet regarding Deloitte’s

alleged potential conflict in this case. Defendant JDSU and Deloitte shall continue to search

for documents regarding this alleged potential conflict. 

15. Once the conflict issue is resolved, Defendant JDSU may take the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

of Lead Plaintiff’s witness Catherine LaMarr for up to an additional seven hours regarding

electronic data retention. 

16. The Court declines to adopt deposition protocols for advance production of deposition

exhibit lists or topic lists. However, the Court encourages the parties where it is feasible to

exchange exhibits in advance of depositions and to notify opposing counsel in general terms

of the deposition topics in an effort to make the deposition time more productive. 

17. No later than August 11, 2006, counsel for the Zellman Plaintiffs shall provide Defendant

JDSU with proposed deposition dates for their witnesses. Those dates may be as far as two

months in the future. 

//

//

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 563 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

18. If the parties believe a further discovery conference would be helpful, they shall notify the

Court by joint letter with proposed dates for the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 563 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4