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

Filing 297


Download PDF
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 ON FITCH’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE v. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., et al., 12 Defendants. / 13 14 Currently before the Court is defendant Fitch, Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff to produce an 15 organizational chart and Rule 30(b)(6) deponent; to produce all documents regarding plaintiff’s 16 purchase of structured finance products for any account, instead of production limited to ARS purchased 17 for plaintiff’s “working capital account”; and a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent regarding preservation of CEO 18 Philip Anschutz’s documents. Docket No. 293. Fitch also requests that a case management conference 19 be set to discuss an extension in the February 2012 discovery cut-off date in light of Fitch’s discovery 20 disputes with plaintiff. Docket No. 294. Finally, Fitch filed a request that the Court order plaintiff to 21 produce the “litigation hold notice” that Philip Anschutz’s assistant received. Docket No. 296. 22 The Court has reviewed Fitch’s position, as well as plaintiff’s responses, and rules as follows: 23 1. Plaintiff shall produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent to testify about plaintiff’s organizational 24 structure and its document retention procedures within fourteen (14) days of this Order. 25 This deposition shall not be contingent on Fitch being required to depose the Rule 26 30(b)(6) deponent on any other topic and shall not excuse plaintiff from producing the 27 same or a different Rule 30(b)(6) deponent in the future to testify on other topics. The 28 Court will not order plaintiff to produce a chart, list or other document identifying its 1 organizational structure as plaintiff has consistently maintained that no such document 2 exists. 3 2. In responding to Fitch’s document production requests, plaintiff shall produce 4 documents regarding collaterialized debt obligations, credit-linked notes and other 5 structured finance products whether or not such investments related to its “working 6 capital account.” Plaintiff shall not limit its Rule 30(b)(6) deponent’s responses to ARS, 7 but shall allow questions regarding investments for any structured finance products. 8 3. With respect to a deponent regarding the preservation of Philip Anschutz’s documents, it appears that plaintiff has agreed to produce Anschutz’s assistant and the parties agreed 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 to take that deposition on Friday, November 11, 2011. Docket No. 296. Fitch complains 11 that plaintiff should be required to produce a copy of the “litigation hold notice” prior 12 to that deposition. Id. The Court DENIES that request without prejudice. In the 13 absence of evidence that spoilation of relevant documents has actually occurred, the 14 Court will not order the notice to be produced. 15 4. Fitch’s request for a discovery conference is DENIED without prejudice. If, after the 16 depositions discussed above are taken, Fitch still believes a continuance in the discovery 17 deadlines would be appropriate, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss an agreed 18 to extension of time and submit that request to the Court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: November 9, 2011 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?