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

Filing 310

ORDER DENYING FITCH AND DBSI'S MOTION TO REDESIGNATE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/30/2011)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
No. C 09-03780 SI

THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION,
7

ORDER DENYING FITCH AND DBSI’S
MOTION TO REDESIGNATE
SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

/

11
12

Currently before the Court are motions by defendant Fitch, Inc. and defendant DBSI to require

13

plaintiff to redesignate documents produced as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the parties’ protective

14

order as “Confidential.” Fitch and DBSI complain they need their employees to be able to review

15

documents regarding plaintiff’s settlement with Credit Suisse Securities (USA) in order to contest

16

plaintiff’s claim of damages in this action. See Docket No. 309. Plaintiff and Credit Suisse object to

17

the motion arguing that defendants’ employees – who are competitors of Credit Suisse and/or persons

18

who may rate products issued by Credit Suisse and/or plaintiff’s affiliates – should not be allowed to

19

review the highly sensitive and confidential settlement documents which contain non-public business

20

plans and financing documents. See id. & Docket No. 302.

21

The Court has considered the parties’ and Credit Suisse’s submissions and DENIES defendants’

22

motion. The Court finds that the Attorney’s Eyes Only designation is appropriate at this juncture.

23

Defendants are not prejudiced by their counsels’ professed inability to understand the settlement

24

documents because, under the protective order in place, defendants can retain experts if necessary to

25

assist them in preparing their damages arguments.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge