Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510-79/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

MORE QUESTIONS RE

PENDING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTIONS

By 5 P.M. TODAY, please answer the following questions, limiting your answers to what is

disclosed in the existing summary judgment record. Three double-spaced pages or less, please:

1. Did analysts pick up on the MBS definition change in 2006 and, if so, what did

they say about it?

2. Did any of the plaintiffs or class members pick up on the MBS definition change in

2006 and, if so, what did they say about it?

3. Was the MBS definition in 2006 customary (versus unusual) compared to other

mutual funds in the period, say, 2004–2007?

Dated: April 7, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 573 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1