‘%q_ Minute Ordeadiorm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

“

valuation report, motion to enforce the court’s order dated 12/27/02 compelling the production of E-Mail

senieiatce | James Moran | Samet
CASE NUMBER 01 C 2963 - (MDL 1417) DATE 7/1/2003
CASE Juan Armstrong et al. Vs. Amsted Industries, Inc. et al.
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented. ]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motiondue____.
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon__setfor__at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—__—at.
(()) Qa Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___——at__—.
(ep) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at
(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
GFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(i) [ FRCP41(a)(2).
(0) =f [Other docket entry} / Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff class’s motion to compel

documents, and motion to amend the scheduling order is granted in part and denied in part.

(il) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices:
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. 0 J
wo | Docketing to mail notices, JUL

Mail AO.480 fom. vynod 191y1sid “sn a [ 3
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. yy

courvoom 2zsh Bd 2- TAP ev possi

WAH deputy's ; seu 4
inials OT hachitd eedtbed in
central Clerk’s Office nailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,

EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC. ) -
“ERISA” LITIGATION ) o ot
)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) DOCKETED
) JUL 03 2003
JUAN ARMSTRONG, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) *
vs. ) No. 01 C 2963
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs seek valuation reports from December 2000 to the present. Defendants resist,

contending that any changes in methodology would be remedial and thus not admissible,
pursuant to Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. They may be right about admissibility,
but that contention is premature. Rule 407 bars admission, not discovery. We think, however,
that “to the present” is more than enough. The reports went from an annual to a quarterly
mode in December 2000. This suit was filed not too long thereafter. We conclude that it is
reasonable to ask for the reports through 2001, but not thereafter.

Plaintiffs also seek production of “any relevant individual’s e-mail ...,” claiming that
defendants have violated the court’s December 17, 2002, order. Defendants disagree,
representing that they have followed up with 18 persons, all of the relevant individuals. It is
obvious that the parties have different views of the universe of relevant individuals. It is also

obvious that plaintiffs’ view is too expansive. It appears, for example, that Patrick Phelan got

12]



—

rd

No. 01 C 2963 Page2

a different laptop when he transferred to Griffen Pipe in March 2002, long after the ESOP
amendments, and that he had no real responsibilities regarding ESOP while at Griffen Pipe.
We do not consider “relevant individuals” to be everyone who may have by e-mail shared a
thought about the ESOP. That would probably include virtually everyone in the company who
had access to a computer. By “relevant individuals” we mean persons who had some
meaningful responsibility to consider possible changes to the ESOP, and for its administration.
It does not mean everyone who may have commented on the ESOP in passing, or who
responded to a subordinate’s question not because it was his job function to answer inquiries
about the ESOP but because he tried to respond to any inquiry from a subordinate about any
company-related matter about which there was a question. Whether that restricts the universe
to 18 persons we, for now, leave to the parties.

We have no objection to the extension requested. Indeed, it has passed. If these views
necessitate a limited amount of additional discovery within the next two weeks, we have no

objection to that as well.

8 Meow

JAMES B. MORAN

Sehior Judge, U. S. District Court
- l , 2003.