STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

Keith A. Ketterling, OSB No. 913368

Email: kketterling@stollberne.com

Timothy S. DeJong, OSB No. 940662

Email: tdejong@stollberne.com

Jennifer S. Wagner, OSB No. 024470

Email: jwagner@stollberne.com

Nadia H. Dahab, OSB No. 125630

Email:ndahab@stollberne.com

Lydia Anderson-Dana, OSB No. 166167

Email: landersondana@stollberne.com

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500

Portland, Oregon 97204

Telephone: (503) 227-1600

Facsimile: (503) 227-6840

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)

Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

Karl P. Barth (admitted pro hac vice)

Email: karlb@hbsslaw.com

Jeniphr Breckenridge (admitted pro hac vice)

Email: jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300

Seattle, Washington 98101

Telephone: (206) 623-7292

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

[Additional Counsel of Record Listed on Signature Page]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LAWRENCE P. CIUFFITELLI, for himself 

and as Trustee of CIUFFITELLI 

REVOCABLE TRUST; GREG and ANGELA 

JULIEN; JAMES and SUSAN 

MACDONALD, as Co-Trustees of the 

MACDONALD FAMILY TRUST; R.F. 

MACDONALD CO.; ANDREW NOWAK, 

for himself and as Trustee of the ANDREW 

NOWAK REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 

U/A 2/20/2002; WILLIAM RAMSTEIN; and

Case No. 3:16-cv-00580-AC

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 1 of 12
PAGE 1 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

GREG WARRICK, for himself and, with 

SUSAN WARRICK, as Co-Trustees of the 

WARRICK FAMILY TRUST, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP; 

EISNERAMPER LLP; SIDLEY AUSTIN 

LLP; TONKON TORP LLP; TD 

AMERITRADE, INC.; INTEGRITY BANK & 

TRUST; and DUFF & PHELPS, LLC,

Defendants.

LR 7-1 CERTIFICATION

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) conferred in 

person and by email but were unable to resolve these disputes.

MOTION

Pursuant to FRCP 26(c), Plaintiffs move for a protective order limiting the following 

subpoenas issued by Deloitte to documents concerning the subpoenaed parties’ clients’ 

transactions in Aequitas securities:

1. Subpoena issued to non-party CliftonLarsonAllen Wealth Management (“CLAWA”), 

dated August 25, 2018. Decl. of Timothy DeJong (“DeJong Decl.”), Ex. A. This

subpoena is the subject of a pending Motion to Compel filed by Deloitte [ECF 

No. 506];

2. Amended subpoena issued to non-party Aaron D. Maurer, dated April 8, 2019. 

DeJong Decl., Ex. B; and

3. Amended subpoena issued to non-party Antonio Ramirez, dated April 8, 2019. 

DeJong Decl., Ex. C.

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 2 of 12
PAGE 2 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

Specifically, Deloitte should be denied the discovery requested in Request Nos. 6 and 10–13 of 

the CLAWA subpoena. Deloitte should be denied the discovery requested in Request Nos. 2–4 

of the amended Maurer and Ramirez subpoenas.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Deloitte issued wide-ranging document subpoenas to an investment advisory firm, 

CLAWA, and to two individual registered investment advisors (“RIAs”) employed by firms 

other than CLAWA, Maurer and Ramirez.1 The subpoenas seek a kitchen pantry of irrelevant 

material and should be limited as specified herein.

Some of the requests plainly lack any good-faith basis, such as requests for all documents 

relating to the review, modification or approval of any “Transaction”

2

by any “Client.”

3 whether 

or not the client invested in Aequitas or the transaction relates to an Aequitas security, and 

whether or not the client is a Plaintiff in this case;

4

all agreements with any “Client,” whether or 

 

1 Deloitte has also issued deposition subpoenas to these witnesses and to a number of other 

investment advisory firms around the country. If the parties are not able to reach agreement to 

properly limit those depositions to relevant topics, Plaintiffs intend to file a separate motion for 

protective order to limit or preclude those depositions.

2 The subpoenas define “Transaction” to mean “any purchase, sale, transfer, contribution, 

assignment, consolidation, renewal, reinvestment, rollover, prepayment, payment, return on 

investment, or any other exchange.” DeJong Decl., Ex. A (Definition 12); Exs. B–C (Definition 

13). 

3 The CLAWA subpoena defines “Client” to mean “any Person (including any Investment 

Advisers or Broker-Dealers) to whom You provided investment advisory, asset management, or 

brokerage services, provided information about or analysis of investment assets, including 

through mailing lists, email list-serves, or other in-person communications, acted as an agent for 

or on behalf of, received Communications for, or received payment or other compensation 

from.” DeJong Decl., Ex. A (Definition 8).

4

In briefing on Deloitte’s pending Motion to Compel directed at CLAWA, Deloitte states, at 

page 41, “Deloitte now seeks CLAWA’s full compliance with its Subpoena. This Court should 

order CLAWA to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 2-19 for all 

of CLAWA’s clients that invested in Aequitas.” Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendant Deloitte 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 3 of 12
PAGE 3 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

not the client invested in Aequitas, and whether or not the client is a Plaintiff in this case; and all 

documents relating to the third party’s compliance with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. 

Other requests have some tangential relationship, in part, to Aequitas investments but are not 

relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses, such as the complete investment files and financial 

information of all Aequitas investors, information concerning whether Aequitas investments 

were suitable for investors’ financial situations and investment objectives, and the subpoenaed 

parties’ due diligence5into Aequitas.

Deloitte has ignored the law and the Court’s rulings and is engaging in scorched-earth, 

wasteful and abusive document and deposition discovery from Plaintiffs and various RIAs in an 

effort to establish something irrelevant: That Plaintiffs and the Class were misled by their RIAs. 

See DeJong Decl., Ex. D.6 The subject of this lawsuit is Aequitas’s misleading statements to 

 

& Touche LLP’s Motion to Compel Non-Party CliftonLarsonAllen Wealth Advisors, LLC [ECF 

No. 520], Ex. 1 at 41.

5 These requests are extremely broad and include “any report, opinion, Document, or

Communication regarding any investigation, review, or assessment evaluating the advantages 

and risks involved in a transaction, deal, arrangement, agreement, or otherwise,” DeJong Decl., 

Exs. B–C, or “any asset analyses performed, new product committee charters and minutes, 

investment committee charters and minutes, executive committee charters and minutes, operating 

committee charters and minutes, investment management and allocation agreements, pre- and 

post-trade internal reviews, and Documents Relating to the outcome of such reviews,” DeJong 

Decl., Ex. A (Request 12).

6 Deloitte asserts that the discovery is relevant to 

... what the RIAs understood about the clients they advised to purchase Aequitas 

securities and whether they were aware of facts that should have precluded them 

from recommending their clients to invest. ... This evidence is relevant to 

whether Plaintiffs were misled by Aequitas or their RIAs ..., to the role (if any) 

Deloitte played in any specific transaction, and to the third-party claims pending 

against PAG and SCG, the employers of Mssrs. Maurer and Ramirez at the time 

relevant sales were made.

DeJong Decl., Ex. D.

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 4 of 12
PAGE 4 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

investors, and Deloitte’s participation and aid in Aequitas’s securities sales, not any statements 

or actions of RIAs. Plaintiffs ask the Court to curtail this costly and wasteful discovery and 

focus discovery on the relevant issues in the case.

A. Legal Standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “[a] party or any person from whom 

discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . 

forbidding the disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition to moving against 

discovery sought from a party itself, “[a] party can move for a protective order in regard to a 

subpoena issued to a non-party if it believes its own interests are jeopardized by discovery 

sought from a third party and has standing under Rule 26(c) to seek a protective order regarding 

subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information.” In re REMEC, Inc. Sec. 

Litig., No. CIV 04CV1948 JLS AJB, 2008 WL 2282647, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2008); see 8A 

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure 

Civil 3d § 2035 (“[A] party may seek an order if it believes its own interest is jeopardized by 

discovery sought from a third person.”). 

In this situation, “a motion for a protective order . . . does not seek to vindicate a nonparty’s right to resist the compulsory process of the court, . . . [i]nstead, the motion seeks to place 

reasonable limits on the discovery process.” Coulter v. Murrel, No. CIV. 10-102 IEG NLS, 

2011 WL 666894, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011) (quoting Durand v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 

No. CIV A 2:09CV71KS-MTP, 2009 WL 2181258, at *1 (S.D. Miss. July 22, 2009)).

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 5 of 12
PAGE 5 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

“Several Courts within the Ninth Circuit . . . have recognized this sound principle of 

law,” including this Court. In re REMEC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 2282647, at *1 (citing 

cases); see Kadant Johnson Inc. v. D’Amico, No. 3:12-MC-00126, 2012 WL 1576233, at *4 (D. 

Or. May 4, 2012) (recognizing that a party may move for a protective order regarding a subpoena 

issued to a non-party); Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. Bank Tr. Nat. Ass’n, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 

1206 n. 3 (D. Or. 1999), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 218 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(same). In addition, some courts have held that parties have standing to seek protective orders 

against discovery that violates prior court orders. Integra Lifesciences I. Ltd. v. Merck KgAa, 

190 F.R.D. 556, 562 n. 3 (S.D. Cal. 1999).

Deloitte has contended that “Plaintiffs’ standing to object or move to quash a subpoena to 

third parties is limited to privilege or a personal right of privacy,” and that relevance is not a 

proper objection. DeJong Decl., Ex. D. As explained below, the subpoenas do implicate 

Plaintiffs’ and absent class members’ privacy interests, because Deloitte seeks private financial 

information. See Garcia v. Strayhorn, No. 3:13-CV-0807 BEN KSC, 2015 WL 5535733, at *4 

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“An individual has sufficient interest in the information contained in 

areas such as their bank records, social media networking sites, and personnel files to constitute 

grounds for standing” to move to quash discovery directed to nonparty). Furthermore, the 

cumulative effect of the irrelevant discovery by Deloitte is to cause undue burden and expense. 

See FRCP 26(c). And “[a] party . . . has standing under Rule 26(c) to seek a protective order 

regarding subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information,” In re REMEC, 

Inc. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 2282647, at *1, particularly because relevance plays a key role in the

undue burden analysis, see Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard Bell Elecs., 163 F.R.D. 329, 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 6 of 12
PAGE 6 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

335–36 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“Obviously, if the sought-after documents are not relevant . . . , then 

any burden whatsoever imposed . . . would be by definition ‘undue.’”).

B. The Claims and Available Defenses

The elements of Plaintiffs’ Oregon Securities Law claims, and the available defenses to 

the claims, are straightforward. Plaintiffs must prove that Aequitas sold unregistered securities 

or made untrue statements or omissions of material fact in the sale of securities and that the truth 

was not disclosed. Some Defendants may seek to prove that the securities were exempt from 

registration, that the challenged statements were true, that they did not participate or materially 

aid in the sales, or that they did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have 

known, of the existence of facts on which the liability is based. 

Judge Dailey recently ruled in the Aequitas state court cases that comparative-fault like 

defenses (including comparative fault, loss causation or superseding cause, failure to mitigate, 

contributory negligence, and failure to use due care) and equitable defenses (including in pari 

delicto, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, ratification, and laches) are not available under the 

Oregon Securities Law and granted the investors’ motions for judgment on the pleadings as to 

those defenses. See, e.g., Cavanagh et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, et al., No. 18CV09052 

(Mult. Co. Or., Mar. 28, 2019) (Opinion and Order Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings) (DeJong Decl., Ex. E). Plaintiffs intend to seek judgment on the pleadings and/or 

partial summary judgment as to those defenses in the present case. This Court has also ruled that 

“Deloitte has not established that under Oregon law any equitable defenses are available as part 

of the statute’s design or purpose. Hall v. Johnston, 758 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding 

that equitable defenses run counter to Oregon’s interests and are not applicable under ORS § 

59.115).” Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 421] at 8, affirmed [ECF No. 466]. 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 7 of 12
PAGE 7 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

C. Deloitte Seeks Irrelevant Information

1. Non-Aequitas Investments and Financial Information (CLAWA 

Request Nos. 6, 10, 13; Maurer/Ramirez Request Nos. 2, 4)

Deloitte previously sought to compel Plaintiffs to produce documents relating to 

Plaintiffs’ financial condition and investment experience, and the motion was denied. Order on 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 421] at 6, affirmed [ECF No. 466]. Request Nos. 6, 10 

and 13 to CLAWA and Request Nos. 2 and 4 to Maurer and Ramirez seek the same types of 

information regarding Plaintiffs and other Class members from RIAs. 

Deloitte’s Request No. 13 to CLAWA is directly contrary to the Court’s ruling on the 

motion to compel:

13. All Documents Relating to the investment files of Your Clients who 

invested in any Aequitas Security or Aequitas Entity, including without limitation 

Your Client’s demographic information, financial profile, investment strategy, 

asset allocation, net worth, and investment restrictions, as well as any advisory 

client agreements.

DeJong Decl., Ex. A. Deloitte has filed a motion seeking to compel CLAWA to produce these 

documents.

7

 

This Court previously denied Deloitte’s motion to compel “Financial Condition

Documents” from Plaintiffs. Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 421], at 6,

affirmed [ECF No. 466]. This Court rejected Deloitte’s argument “that Plaintiffs’ financial 

condition and investment experience is relevant to Plaintiffs’ knowledge and understanding of 

the risks of their investments.” Id. at 5. The subpoena to CLAWA seeks the same financial 

condition and investment experience information concerning unnamed class members that the 

Court ruled Deloitte could not get from Plaintiffs. 

 

7 Deloitte has taken the position that the motion to compel is fully briefed and pending, and 

that Plaintiffs should file a separate motion for protective order rather than an opposition to the 

motion to compel. See DeJong Decl., Ex. F.

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 8 of 12
PAGE 8 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

Deloitte initially issued subpoenas to Maurer and Ramirez requesting information nearly 

identical to the information requested from CLAWA:

4. All Documents Relating to the investment files of any Plaintiff who invested 

in any Aequitas Security or Aequitas Entity, including without limitation the 

Plaintiff’s demographic information, financial profile, investment strategy, 

asset allocation, net worth, and investment restrictions.

DeJong Decl., Exs. G–H. Deloitte then amended the subpoenas. The amended subpoenas now 

seek:

4. All Documents or Communications Relating to any Suitability Analysis (if 

any) You performed in connection with any recommendation You made to 

Plaintiffs to purchase any Aequitas Security or invest in any Aequitas Entity.

DeJong Decl., Exs. B–C. “Suitability Analysis” is defined in the amended subpoenas to mean

... all Documents and tangible things, as defined under FINRA Rule 2111 

(Suitability), that provide a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended 

Transaction is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained 

through reasonable diligence to ascertain the customer’s investment profile. A 

customer’s investment profile includes, but is not limited to, the customer’s age, 

financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives, investment 

experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any 

other information the customer may disclose.

DeJong Decl., Exs. B–C. (Definition 15) (emphasis added). Similarly, Request No. 6 to 

CLAWA seeks “[a]ll Documents Relating to the review, modification, and approval of any 

Transaction by Your Clients prepared by Your compliance department or compliance officer, 

including any analyses You conducted in which any Aequitas Security was deemed unsuitable or 

inappropriate for any of Your Clients.” DeJong Decl., Ex. A.

The request for suitability information seeks information concerning investors’ financial 

situation and investment experience, both of which are expressly included in the definition of 

“suitability.” The reasoning this Court previously applied in denying Deloitte’s motion to 

compel similar information directly from Plaintiffs also supports granting the present motion and 

rejecting Deloitte’s attempt to take the discovery indirectly from RIAs. In certifying the Tonkon 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 9 of 12
PAGE 9 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

settlement class, this Court ruled that, “[u]nder ORS § 59.115, only an investor’s actual 

knowledge is relevant, and the statute does not impose an obligation of inquiry on the buyer or 

purchaser.” Ciuffitelli v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, No. 3:16-CV-00580-AC, 2019 WL 1441634, 

at *14 (D. Or. Mar. 19, 2019). Whether an RIA recommended an investment that is not suitable 

for the investor’s financial condition is not relevant to whether the investor knew the truth of 

Aequitas’s undisclosed Ponzi scheme. 

Request Nos. 10 to CLAWA and 2 to Maurer/Ramirez seek all documents and 

communications relating to any agreements between the advisors and any of their clients, such as 

waivers, disclosures and acknowledgments. This discovery should be precluded for the same 

reasons that discovery of investors’ financial conditions and investment histories should be 

precluded. 

2. Due Diligence Documents (CLAWA Request No. 12; Maurer/Ramirez 

Request No. 3)

This Court has ruled that Plaintiffs had no duty of inquiry or to conduct due diligence. 

See Ciuffitelli, 2019 WL 1441634, at *14. Request No. 12 to CLAWA and Request No. 3 to 

Maurer and Ramirez seek due diligence material from non-parties. DeJong Decl., Exs. A–C. 

From Maurer and Ramirez, Deloitte seeks “any report, opinion, Document, or Communication 

regarding any investigation, review, or assessment evaluating the advantages and risk involved in 

a transaction, deal, arrangement, agreement, or otherwise.” DeJong Decl., Exs. B–C (Definition 

8, “Due Diligence”). From CLAWA, Deloitte seeks “asset analyses performed, new product 

committee charters and minutes, investment committee charters and minutes, executive 

committee charters and minutes, operating committee charters and minutes, investment 

management and allocation agreements, pre- and post-trade internal reviews, and Documents 

Relating to the outcome of such reviews.” DeJong Decl., Ex. A (Request 12). Any due 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 10 of 12
PAGE 10 -PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

diligence conducted by these third parties is irrelevant. Deloitte’s due diligence might be 

relevant if Deloitte had chosen to assert that affirmative defense, but a RIA’s due diligence does 

not relate to any defense at all. 

3. ’40 Act Compliance Materials (CLAWA Request No. 11)

Request No. 11 to CLAWA broadly seeks “[a]ll Documents Relating to Your policies 

and procedures designed to comply with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,” including a 

laundry list of subcategories. DeJong Decl., Ex. A. This discovery plainly has nothing 

whatsoever to do with Plaintiffs’ claims or Deloitte’s defenses.

4. Deloitte Has Not Been Granted Leave to Assert Third-Party Claims

Deloitte has asserted that the discovery is relevant to third-party claims it has sought 

leave to assert. Deloitte’s motion for leave to assert those claims is pending and has not been 

granted. Discovery relating to the potential third-party claims should not be allowed before the 

motion for leave has even been considered by the Court.

The Court’s prior orders concluding that Plaintiffs’ financial situation and investment 

experience are not relevant to this litigation, the implications Deloitte’s requested discovery has 

for Plaintiffs’ and absent class members’ privacy interests, and the undue burden and expense 

necessitated by this discovery all constitute good cause for a protective order.

8 Plaintiffs urge the 

Court to enter a protective order to prohibit Deloitte from further discovery on these topics, and 

deny Deloitte the discovery requested in Request Nos. 6 and 10–13 of the CLAWA subpoena 

and the discovery requested in Request Nos. 2–4 of the Maurer and Ramirez subpoenas.

 

8 Even though Deloitte’s motion to compel production of documents was denied, Defendants 

deposed Plaintiffs extensively regarding their financial condition, investment histories and 

reliance. Deloitte has also subpoenaed or indicated that it will subpoena numerous RIAs—most 

of which did not advise any of the Plaintiffs—for deposition. 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 11 of 12
PAGE 11 -PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DELOITTE 

SUBPOENAS)

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

DATED this 8th day of May, 2019.

STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

By: s/Timothy S. DeJong

Keith A. Ketterling, OSB No. 913368

Timothy S. DeJong, OSB No. 940662

Jennifer S. Wagner, OSB No. 024470

Nadia H. Dahab, OSB No. 125630

Lydia Anderson-Dana, OSB No. 166167

209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 227-1600

Email: kketterling@stollberne.com

tdejong@stollberne.com

jwagner@stollberne.com

ndahab@stollberne.com

landersondana@stollberne.com

-AndSteve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)

Karl P. Barth (admitted pro hac vice)

Jeniphr Breckenridge (admitted pro hac vice)

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 623-7292

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594

Email: steve@hbsslaw.com; 

karlb@hbsslaw.com

jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

-AndRobert S. Banks, Jr., OSB No. 821862

Email: bob@bankslawoffice.com

Robert S. Banks, Jr.

Banks Law Office, P.C.

1001 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 222-7475

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 545 Filed 05/08/19 Page 12 of 12