Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-25/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 JUNE 9, 2006

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

On June 9, 2006, the Court held a discovery conference in this case on two issues: (1)

production in searchable format compatible with Concordance of metadata, text and load files for the

departmental share drives; (2) the existence of inventories of certain back-up tapes. For the reasons

stated at the hearing, the Court issues the following Order:

1. Defendant JDSU stated at the hearing that the departmental share drives have been burned to

storage disks that would have to be restored in order to produce the contents of the drives,

including the metadata, text and load files. The restoration would cost between $25,200 and

$35,650. Janes Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. The Court finds that the metadata, text and load files for the

share drives may have some relevance and so should be produced. The Court’s preferred

method for production of the information is for Defendants JDSU to produce the storage

disks to Lead Plaintiff to restore to usable form at Lead Plaintiff’s own expense, which Lead

Plaintiff believes may be less than the estimate provided to Defendant. The Court indicated

that it is willing to enter any appropriate order to prevent against privilege waiver. To that

end, Defendants JDSU shall examine the contents of the disks for privileged documents, and

shall inform the Court no later than June 20, 2006 of the results of that privilege review and

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 503 Filed 06/14/06 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

whether Defendants JDSU will give the disks to Lead Plaintiff subject to a court order

protecting Defendants JDSU against any privilege waiver. Alternatively, if the disks are not

handed over to Lead Plaintiff, Defendants JDSU shall restore the metadata, text and load

files and produce that information to Lead Plaintiff. In that event, the cost of restoration

shall be divided evenly between Lead Plaintiff and Defendants JDSU.

2. In response to the Court’s May 18, 2006 Order, Defendants JDSU produced existing

inventories or lists of the contents of the back up tapes. Lead Plaintiff now seeks indices or

catalogs for the back up tapes, or an explanation of why those indices or lists are missing. 

Defendants JDSU state that they do not know where the indices or catalogs are without

restoring all back up tapes, and that indices do not exist for all tapes. This information is of

some relevance, but not sufficient relevance to justify much burden. Lead Plaintiff may

propound an interrogatory to Defendants JDSU seeking an explanation of why some back up

tapes have indices and others do not. If Lead Plaintiff can show that the response to this

interrogatory is insufficient, Lead Plaintiff may be entitled to more discovery on that issue. 

3. With respect to the ERP database systems, Lead Plaintiff and its expert shall provide an

explanation to Defendants’ counsel of exactly what additional information it needs about the

databases that would be sufficient for Lead Plaintiff to make an informed decision about

whether and how best to examine the databases. The relevant experts in this case shall

discuss this information directly with each other, with the lawyers if the parties wish, and

Defendants’ expert shall make disclosures about the databases, including the architecture and

the ways in which information can be provided to Lead Plaintiff, that are necessary to inform

Lead Plaintiff’s decision. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 503 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2