Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00883/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00883-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 1

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 139 and 141.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN STRIGLIABOTTI, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-00883 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The parties have filed letter briefs regarding a pending discovery dispute.1 Plaintiffs seek an order

compellingdefendantsimmediately to produce alldocumentsresponsive to plaintiffs’ first request forproduction

of documents. 

Defendants have refused to produce any documents, and have raised numerous grounds for their

refusal. As a general matter, defendants state that “once the parameters of the case become clear,” they will

produce responsive discovery. The Court’s November 9, 2005 order denied defendants’ motion for judgment

on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ federal and state claims, and thus to the extent defendants refused to produce

documents because that motion was pending, those objections are now moot. 

Defendants also object that unless and until plaintiffs’ state law claims are certified, defendants should

only be required to produce discovery relevant to plaintiffs’ federalclaims. The Court agrees that whether the

state law claims are certified will likely bear on whether discovery regarding the state law claims is burdensome

and disproportionate. Accordingly, at this time, the Court orders defendants to produce only those documents

that are relevant to the federalclaims. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the scope of such discovery.

Case 3:04-cv-00883-SI Document 147 Filed 11/15/05 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

After the class certification motion is decided, plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel if necessary. 

Defendants also object to the 15 year time period covered by the discovery request, contending that

discovery should be limited to the 1 or 4 year damages periods allowed by federalorstate law. Plaintiffs argue

that documents covering the longer time period are relevant to showing how the Funds, and consequently the

advisory fees, have grown over time, as well as whether those fees are excessive. The Court agrees with

plaintiffs that some documents predating the damages periods are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. However, the Court is also mindful of the defendants’ concerns regarding burden. Accordingly, the

Court limits plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents to documents dating back to January 1, 1995.

Defendants raise a similar objection to the fact that plaintiffs’ discovery is directed at all of the funds

in the Franklin Complex rather than just the eight funds mentioned in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs

have not addressed this issue in their letter brief. Based upon the record before the Court, the Court concludes

that the burden associated with producing documents for the approximately 100 funds in the Complex

outweighs the probative value of these documents, and accordingly at this time defendants are not required to

produce documents related to funds other than the 8 funds mentioned in the complaint. 

Finally, defendants state that they have raised a number of other objections that have not been

addressed by plaintiffs through the meet and confer process or in plaintiffs’ letter brief. Accordingly, the Court

orders the parties to further meet and confer regarding such objections, as well as to meet and confer on the

scope of discovery related to the federal claims. The parties shall conclude the meet and confer process by

November 21, 2005 and defendants shall produce documents by November 30, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00883-SI Document 147 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2