Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW sf-2193728

[Counsel Listed on Signature Page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: All Actions

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING EXPERT 

DISCOVERY

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 650 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 656 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW

Master File No. sf-2193728 C-02-1486 CW

1

WHEREAS, the parties intend to exchange expert reports prior to trial and to conduct 

expert discovery, 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to agree in advance to certain limitations on expert discovery 

to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, through their counsel of 

record, as follows:

1. This stipulation concerns discovery related to testifying experts. The parties agree 

that there shall be no disclosures with respect to consulting experts.

2. The parties shall not be required to preserve or produce draft expert reports or any 

notes or communications related thereto, including draft studies and draft work papers, unless the 

expert is relying upon facts or data contained in any such documents in forming an opinion in this 

matter and those facts or data are not otherwise produced. 3. The parties shall not be required to preserve or produce, nor shall the expert be 

required to testify about, any correspondence or communications between any expert and the 

attorneys for the party offering the testimony of that expert, unless the expert is relying on facts or 

data contained in such correspondence or communications in forming an opinion in this matter

and those facts or data are not otherwise produced. 4. The parties shall not be required to preserve or produce any correspondence or 

communications among experts retained by the same party, including testifying and consulting 

experts, unless the expert is relying on facts or data contained in such correspondence or 

communications in forming an opinion in this matter and those facts or data are not otherwise 

produced. 5. To the extent that a party’s expert witness report cites, or otherwise relies on,

electronic documents, that party shall produce those documents in electronic form.

6. The parties are not required to serve subpoenas for deposition on any expert. 

Instead, the party retaining the expert shall make the expert available for deposition, at the 

mutually agreed upon time and place.

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 650 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 656 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW

Master File No. sf-2193728 C-02-1486 CW

2

7. Except as provided herein, the parties shall make all other expert disclosures 

required by the Federal Rules. Any supplemental production must be completed at least one 

week prior to the expert’s deposition.

Dated: October 16, 2006 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof

Attorneys for Defendants

JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef 

Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles 

J. Abbe

Dated: October 16, 2006 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

By: /s/ Howard S. Caro

Howard S. Caro

Attorneys for Defendant 

Kevin Kalkhoven

Dated: October 16, 2006 LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP

BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO 

BURT & PUCILLO

By: /s/ Mark S. Arisohn

Mark S. Arisohn

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust 

Funds

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October __, 2006

 HONORABLE ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 650 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 3

23

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 656 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 3