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