Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-85/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 DENYING LEAD PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR MISCELLANEOUS

RELIEF

On May 23, 2007, Lead Plaintiff filed a letter brief requesting miscellaneous relief pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7-11 in the form of an order compelling JDSU to state by a date certain whether

the individual JDSU Defendants (Jozef Straus, Jay Abbe and Tony Muller) will introduce evidence

of diversification. On May 30, 2007, JDSU submitted a response. 

In the Court’s April 10, 2007 Order Granting in Part Lead Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Limited Additional Discovery, the Court denied additional discovery of the individual Defendants’

financial transactions, stating in a footnote that “Defense counsel has indicated, however, that the

individual JDSU defendants might testify that they sold JDSU stock to diversify their portfolios. 

The Court notes that such testimony could put the individuals’ financial transactions and investment

portfolios at issue, and does not address whether that eventuality would justify further discovery or

other steps.” See Apr. 10, 2007 Order (docket no. 1064) at n. 2. The Court did not require JDSU to

state whether it would offer evidence of diversification with respect to the individual Defendants. 

Lead Plaintiff does not point to any new facts that would cause the Court to address the question, left

open in the April 10, 2007 Order, of whether “further discovery or other steps,” such as stating

whether diversification evidence would be offered, should be taken regarding the individual

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1147 Filed 06/04/07 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

Defendants. Therefore, Lead Plaintiff’s request for relief is denied. 

JDSU is cautioned, however, that in making this Order, the Court relies on JDSU’s

representations in its May 30, 2007 letter that the individual Defendants have “no intention of

relying on or introducing into evidence any documents regarding their investments apart from those

already produced to Plaintiffs,” and that “to the extent they testify about investment diversification,

their testimony would be limited to the common-sense practice of not placing all their eggs in one

basket.” IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1147 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 2