The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al
Filing
342
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/6/2012)
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 IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., et al.,
12
Defendants.
/
13
14
Currently before the Court is defendant Fitch, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses by
15
plaintiff The Anschutz Corporation’s (“TAC”) to Fitch’s Interrogatories Nos. 3-4 and to compel
16
TAC to add Paul Grigel as a custodian. Docket No. 331.
17
1.
With respect to Interrogatory No. 3, the Court agrees with TAC that as phrased the
18
interrogatory is impermissibly overbroad, as it potentially encompasses thousands upon thousands
19
of documents. However, Fitch’s narrowed request – as framed in its motion to compel – that TAC
20
be required to identify “reports” “summarizing or analyzing Anschutz’s ARS,” is more appropriate.
21
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Fitch’s request in part and compels TAC to provide a supplemental
22
interrogatory response identifying the following: reports created by TAC that summarize or analyze
23
TAC’s ARS investments.
24
2.
With respect to Interrogatory No. 4, which asks TAC to identify the “author,
25
recipients, and any other person or entity that received or reviewed each of the” documents
26
identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3, the Court GRANTS Fitch’s request in part and compels
27
TAC to provide a supplemental interrogatory response identifying the following: the author and
28
recipient(s) of each report identified in its supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 3.
1
3.
With respect to Paul Grigel, the Court finds that Fitch has not made a showing that
2
Grigel was sufficiently involved with plaintiff’s ARS investments to require that he be added as a
3
custodian. TAC asserts that Grigel’s only involvement with TAC’s ARS investments was one call
4
to S&P at the request of a TAC executive in November 2007, after the ARS market failures. In the
5
absence of any evidence – other than one S&P document memorializing that one call – that Grigel
6
played a larger role in TAC’s ARS investments, the Court will not order that Grigel be added as a
7
custodian. Fitch’s motion to compel on this issue is DENIED without prejudice. The Court,
8
however, will accept TAC’s compromise position and compel TAC to produce any responsive
9
documents that Grigel has in his possession.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
The supplemental responses required shall be provided within thirty days of the date of this
Order.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: February 6, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?