The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al

Filing 270

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (RE DBSI) (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 09-03780 SI
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., et al.,

12

Defendants.

/

13
14

Currently before the Court is plaintiff the Anschutz Corporation’s motion to compel defendant

15

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. (“DBSI”) to provide additional responses to discovery [Docket No. 268].

16

The Court has reviewed the parties’ submission and rules as follows:

17
18

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 2 and 5 is GRANTED. DBSI

19

is not entitled to limit its responses to documents concerning only the three series of

20

Auction Rate Securities (“ARS”) that plaintiff bought (the Capstan, Camber and Pivot

21

series). DBSI documents regarding its dealings on other ARS are relevant in light of

22

plaintiff’s assertions about the ARS market in general and DBSI’s dealings in that

23

market.

24
25

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 2-7, 11-13, 16, 20-22, 27, 31,

26

33, 36-49, 52-55, 58-59 and 66 is GRANTED. As noted above, documents regarding

27

ARS and structured finance products (“SFPs”) other than those purchased by plaintiff

28

are relevant to the claims in this litigation. However, in light of DBSI’s burden

1

argument, the Court will – at this juncture – limit that production as suggested at page

2

2 of plaintiff’s 9/13/11 letter [Docket No. 268], as follows: DBSI shall: (I) produce

3

documents sufficient to show DBSI’s bidding practices for all other ARS in which it

4

served as sole or lead broker-dealer; (ii) produce all readily identifiable responsive

5

documents as limited above [defined as manuals and procedures; prospectuses; DBSI’s

6

public statements; and documents sufficient to show (a) fees earned from ARS; (b)

7

payments to rating agencies; (c) the DBSI ARS rated by the rating agency defendants;

8

and (d) which employees placed bids on ARS for DBSI’s own account]; and (iii) identify

9

and search the files of all persons who were involved in or supervised the placement of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

bids for the DBSI ARS as limited above.

11
12

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 1 is GRANTED.

13

Information regarding DBSI’s bids for its own account is highly relevant to the claims

14

at issue in this lawsuit. Requiring plaintiff to construct an answer to this interrogatory

15

from multiple sets of as yet unproduced documents is not an appropriate solution to

16

DBSI’s assertion that it is having a difficult time constructing a response itself in light

17

of the departure of an employee.

18
19

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents created in 2005 and from 2008 onwards is

20

GRANTED in part. Documents created from 2005 though December 2007 are relevant

21

and shall be produced. However, at this juncture, as to documents post-2007 the Court

22

orders production only of those documents concerning DBSI’s tenders for the Capstan,

23

Camber and Pivot securities.

24
25

5.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 55-57 and 71 is GRANTED.

26

These documents – whether related to the ARS plaintiff bought or other ARS – are

27

directly relevant to the claims at issue in this case.

28
2

1

6.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 3-4, 67, and 69-70 is

2

GRANTED. The documents regarding the C&D Order are directly relevant to the issues

3

in this case and while the documents related to the MSRB and no-action letter are less

4

directly relevant, the burden on DBSI to produce them is slight.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: September 19, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3