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 parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 105, 109-113.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF ALAMEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME

OPPORTUNITY FUND, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-4575 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have filed letter briefs regarding a dispute over the City’s attempt to take a

“custodian of records” Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on document retention, search and production issues.1

The City asserts that the two individuals previously produced by Nuveen to testify about the noticed

deposition topics were inadequately prepared, and the City moves to compel a resumed four hour

deposition on various topics. The City also moves to compel production of Nuveen’s document

retention policies in place from 2003 to the present in order to complete the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

Finally, the City requests that the Court order Nuveen to produce the witness (or witnesses) in the Bay

Area. 

In response, Nuveen agrees with the City that the prior Rule 30(b)(6) deponents were unable to

testify about Nuveen’s search for and production of electronic documents other than email. Nuveen

asserts that any resumed deposition should be limited to that topic, last no more than one hour, and take

place either by telephone or at Nuveen’s headquarters in Chicago where all counsel will be present in

April for depositions of Nuveen’s witnesses. Nuveen also seeks a protective order with regard to its

2003 email archive. Nuveen states that it has reviewed two million production documents and there is

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 116 Filed 03/16/10 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

 The City objects that the parties have not sufficiently met and conferred on the issue of the

2003 email archive. However, the parties’ flurry of discovery letters suggests that any further meet and

confer on this issue would be futile.

2

no documentation indicating that Stone & Youngberg or anyone else contacted Nuveen about the Notes

prior to early 2004.2

 With regard to the production of document retention schedules, Nuveen argues that

it has produced all such documents insofar as they relate to the purchase of municipal bonds, and that

it objects to producing copies of policies and procedures relating to Municipal Securities Rulemaking

Board and SEC rules and regulations having nothing to do with the purchase of municipal bonds.

The Court has reviewed the voluminous letter briefs filed by the parties and concludes that the

City is entitled to a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition limited to the topic of Nuveen’s search for and

production of electronic documents other than email. The City has not shown that the previous

deponents were unable to testify about the Nuveen’s search for and production of paper documents and

email. Although theoretically the 2003 email archive could contain relevant documents, the fact that

none of the two million documents searched thus far indicate that anyone contacted Nuveen about the

sale of the Notes prior to 2004 suggests that the 2003 email archive does not contain relevant

documents. Thus, absent some showing by the City that the 2003 email archive actually contains

responsive documents, the Court agrees with Nuveen that a search of this archive is burdensome and

not likely to lead to relevant information. Finally, the City has not demonstrated that the disputed

requests for production relate to the matters in this litigation, namely the purchase and ownership of

municipal bonds.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the City may take a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition limited

to the topic of Nuveen’s search for and production of electronic documents other than email. The

deposition shall be limited to two hours, and shall take place either by telephone or in Chicago in April.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 116 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2