The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al
Filing
396
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/17/2012)
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
12
No. C 09-03780 SI
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
/
13
14
Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Fitch, Inc. to respond to
15
Interrogatories Nos. 2 & 3. Those interrogatories ask Fitch to identify persons who had involvement
16
in rating or monitoring the Credit Linked Notes (CLNs) that underlie the Camber, Pivot and Capstan
17
Auction Rate Securities (ARS) at issue, as well as identify the legal entities that issued or monitored the
18
ratings of the CLNs. Docket No. 395. Plaintiff also asks the Court to compel Fitch to produce the “deal
19
files” for the CLNs.
20
Fitch objects to producing the requested information, arguing the information is irrelevant
21
because the ratings given to the ARS securities were based on the “pre-existing” ratings assigned to the
22
collateralizing CLNs, which ratings were themselves based on ratings for other corporate bonds, some
23
secured through credit default swaps. Fitch suggests that because the ratings process for the CLNs or
24
other underlying securities was not considered in rating the ARS securities at issue – because Fitch just
25
assumed the pre-existing ratings for the underlying securities and passed them on as ratings for the
26
CLNs and then for the ARS – the identity of individuals and entities involved in assigning or monitoring
27
the ratings of the CLNs, as well as the related documents, are all irrelevant. The Court disagrees. The
28
heart of the claim against Fitch is what Fitch knew or should have known about the credit ratings
1
assigned to the ARS. The credit ratings assigned to the CLNs, even if they were simply pass-ons from
2
other products, are directly relevant to that question.
3
Fitch also argues that plaintiff’s request for production of the deal files is untimely because the
4
parties’ agreed-to deadline of April 3, 2012, for “substantial completion of document productions,”
5
(Docket No. 363) has passed. However, there is no evidence that the number of documents at issue is
6
so large that it would undermine the parties’ agreement that “substantial document production” be
7
complete as of early April. Moreover, the fact discovery cutoff in this case is not until July 9, 2012.
8
The Court, therefore, rejects Fitch’s timeliness argument.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Fitch shall produce the information required by
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
Interrogatories Nos. 2-3 and the underlying deal files for the relevant CLNs within ten (10) days of the
11
date of this Order.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: April 17, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
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?