Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-94/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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

[Counsel Listed on Signature Pages] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

In re JDSU UNIPHASE CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

 ALL ACTIONS 

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING UNCONTESTED 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE AS MODIFIED 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 7
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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

1

WHEREAS, the parties exchanged proposed Motions in Limine on August 24, 2007, and 

continued to discuss these matters thereafter; 

WHEREAS, on September 5, 2007, the parties met and conferred and reached agreement 

on certain proposed Motions in Limine; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their counsel of 

record, that: 

1. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument demonstrating or 

referring to the current financial condition of JDS Uniphase Corporation (“JDSU”), including 

the potential effect of any judgment in this matter on JDSU’s business, shareholders, or 

employees, or the possibility that JDSU would have to file for bankruptcy protection as a 

consequence of an adverse judgment. This stipulation does not prohibit the parties from 

introducing evidence, such as testimony adduced through current JDSU employees, 

concerning JDSU’s current operations, including the fact that JDSU is still in business, the 

locations of the Company’s operating facilities, and descriptions of JDSU’s products, 

provided that such evidence is admissible. 

2. During the initial phase of the trial of this matter, as described in Paragraph 13 

below, the parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument demonstrating or 

referring to prior litigation by or against JDSU, the Individual Defendants (Kevin Kalkhoven, 

Jozef Straus, Anthony Muller and Charles Abbe), or the named plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”).1

 

3. During the initial phase of trial in this matter, as described in Paragraph 13 

below, the parties agree that Lead Plaintiff may identify itself as “Connecticut Retirement 

Plans and Trust Funds, a pension fund for public employees in the State of Connecticut,” but 

shall not provide additional detail about, or identify or describe the individual beneficiaries 

of, the constituent funds. 

 1

 The parties have not reached agreement whether evidence of Plaintiffs’ prior litigation 

would be relevant if, after a finding of liability, a second phase of the trial commences. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 7
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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

2

4. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument regarding 

individualized issues of reliance or damages during the initial phase of trial, as described in 

Paragraph 13 below. 

5. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument stating or 

implying that this matter is brought or being prosecuted as a governmental enforcement or 

regulatory action. 

6. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument referring to the 

price of the common stock of JDS Fitel, Inc. (“Fitel”), Uniphase Corp. (“Uniphase”), or 

JDSU during any given period, or to the number of shares of JDSU common stock involved 

in any particular transaction(s), without adjusting for splits in Fitel, Uniphase, and JDSU 

common stock. The parties intend to attach a stock price table to the Joint Pretrial 

Conference Statement that accurately reflects the split-adjusted price of JDSU stock, and the 

fact that JDSU common stock split 2-for-1 (i.e., replacing each share or option to purchase 

common stock with two shares or option to purchase two shares) on the following days: 

July 27, 1999, December 30, 1999 and March 10, 2000. 

7. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument concerning 

JDSU’s accounting for the compensation paid to former SDL executives.2

 

8. The parties shall attempt to reach an agreement regarding the appropriate context 

for each challenged statement upon which Plaintiffs purport to base liability. They will 

attach a table to the Joint Pretrial Conference Statement that reflects any agreements they 

have reached regarding the proper context for each challenged statement. Plaintiffs also shall 

identify, in that table, the precise language of each statement that they contend is false or 

misleading. 

 2

 The parties did not reach agreement regarding the exclusion of any reference to the 

compensation paid to former SDL executives. Accordingly, that issue is addressed separately in 

Defendants’ Motions in Limine. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 7
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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

3

9. The parties shall not attempt to introduce the following evidence or argument 

about JDSU’s customers: restatements of financial results, audits, and investigations of 

potential irregularities or announced irregularities.3 

10. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument referring to the 

existence of insurance coverage for the benefit of any Individual Defendant. 

11. The parties shall not attempt to introduce evidence or argument that JDSU’s 

executives were overpaid relative to executives at other companies, or that they received 

improperly large or improperly priced or dated stock option grants from JDSU, Uniphase, or 

Fitel. This does not preclude Plaintiffs from attempting to introduce evidence of the 

Individual Defendants’ compensation. 

12. Nothing in the foregoing shall be read to suggest that a party is precluded from 

argument or evidence in response to another party’s introduction of evidence in 

contravention of the agreements reflected in the numbered paragraphs 1 through 11, above, 

or necessary to comment on or rebut testimony that opens the door to the precluded evidence. 

* * * 

The parties also stipulate to the following: 

13. The case shall proceed in two phases, with the first phase limited to classwide 

issues. The parties agree that individualized issues of damages and reliance shall be reserved 

for the second phase. The parties have not yet agreed about what additional issues also 

should be reserved for the second phase. 

14. Jury instructions may be provided to the jury before the presentation of 

evidence. The parties shall suggest to the Court jury instructions to be provided to the jury 

before the presentation of evidence. 

 3

 The parties did not reach agreement regarding exclusion of any reference to matters 

described in a May 9, 2000 email bearing the subject line “Lucent Refund Program.” 

Accordingly, that issue is addressed separately in Defendants’ Motions in Limine and is excluded 

from this stipulation. 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 7
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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

4

15. Percipient witnesses shall, at the request of any party, be excluded from the 

courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. The parties agree that this does not apply to 

parties and expert witnesses. 

16. The issue of whether witnesses who appear on Defendants’ witness list may be 

asked leading questions by Plaintiffs shall be resolved at trial. 

17. The parties reserve the right to request the Court to resolve, at the appropriate 

time, additional motions in limine directed to the second phase of trial. 

Dated: September 18, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Jordan Eth 

Jordan Eth 

Attorneys for Defendants 

JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef 

Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and 

Charles J. Abbe 

 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 5 of 7
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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

5

Dated: September 18, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

By: /s/ Howard S. Caro 

Howard S. Caro 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Kevin Kalkhoven 

Dated: September 18, 2007 LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP 

BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO 

BURT & PUCILLO 

By: /s/ Anthony J. Harwood 

Anthony J. Harwood 

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff 

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust 

Funds 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, EXCEPT THE 

BIFURCATION PROVISIONS, WHICH MAY BE ADDRESSED AT THE PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE. 

9/20/07 

Dated: ____________________ 

 HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 6 of 7
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 

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE UNDISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 

sf-2389192 

6

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

I, Jordan Eth, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Uncontested Motions in limine. In compliance with 

General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Anthony J. Harwood, attorney for Plaintiffs, and 

Howard S. Caro, attorney for Defendant Kevin Kalkhoven have concurred in this filing. 

Dated: September 18, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

 By: /s/ Jordan Eth 

 Jordan Eth 

Attorneys for the JDSU Defendants 

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1474 Filed 09/20/07 Page 7 of 7