Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-100/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 02-1486 CW

ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO EXCLUDE

PLAINTIFFS'

EXPERTS

Defendants have filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs' experts. 

The Court has reviewed the memorandum of points and authorities

filed in support of that motion and finds that it does not contain

citations to the pertinent pages of the expert reports. Absent

such citation, the Court cannot evaluate Defendants' motion. 

For example, in seeking to exclude the testimony of Scott

Hakala, Defendants state, 

According to Hakala, there was an "event" that caused

inflation in JDSU's stock price on 42 days

("inflationary events"). Nearly 90% of these days (37

out of 42) do not match the 56 allegedly misleading

statements identified.

Defendants' Motion at 5. However, Defendants do not cite specific

paragraphs of Hakala's reports where these assertions are made or

otherwise identify the forty-two or thirty-seven days to which they

refer. In other instances, Defendants' motion cites to their

experts' rebuttal reports, which in turn do not indicate the source

of the information they discuss. For example, Defendants state,

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1546 Filed 09/28/07 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

Of Hakala's 35 "corrective events," 21 do not meet his

own test of statistical significance, meaning that

Hakala cannot establish that losses on these 21 days

were caused by company-specific information (whether

fraud-related or not).

Defendants Motion at 8. In support of this argument, Defendants

cite their expert Allen Kleidon's Rebuttal Report at paragraph 126. 

In turn, Kleidon's report states, "of Hakala's 35 alleged

corrective disclosure dates . . . , 21 (or 60%) are not

statistically significant using a 95% one-tailed test." Kleidon

Rebuttal Report ¶ 126. The report does not indicate which twentyone statements are not statistically significant, nor does it

identify where the challenged information is located in Hakala's

report. 

If Defendants wish their motion meaningfully considered, by

Monday, October 1, 2007 at 9:00 AM, they shall re-submit it,

modified to include citations to specific paragraphs and pages of

the relevant expert reports. Defendants shall also cite specific

pages when they refer to exhibits to reports and declarations. To

the extent they rely on their experts' rebuttal reports, Defendants

shall also submit amended reports that include references to the

paragraph and page of the analysis that the rebuttal reports

challenge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/28/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1546 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2