The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, Inc et al

Filing 1362

Download PDF
The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al Doc. 1362 1 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 2 PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070) REED R. KATHREIN (139304) 3 JEFF D. FRIEDMAN (173886) SYLVIA WAHBA KELLER (197612) 4 CONNIE M. CHEUNG (215381) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 5 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415/288-4545 6 415/288-4534 (fax) 7 8 9 and WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581) 10 ELIZABETH A. ACEVEDO (227347) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 11 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 12 619/231-7423 (fax) 13 14 15 16 17 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C-03-3709-SI CLASS ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF REED R. KATHREIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED DATE: TIME: COURTROOM: March 31, 2006 9:00 a.m. Honorable Susan Illston In re CV THERAPEUTICS, INC. 18 SECURITIES LITIGATION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. 1 2 I, REED R. KATHREIN, declare as follows: I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of California. I 3 am a member of the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, one of the 4 counsel of record for plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of the matters 5 stated herein and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto. 6 1. I personally reviewed hard copies of all the documents produced by CV Therapeutics, 7 Inc.'s General Counsel, Tricia Suvari, and its Senior Corporate Counsel, Douglas Sheehy, as well as 8 indexes of all electronic documents produced by defendants for the August 2003 and early 9 September 2003 time frame for copies of alleged emails sent by Ms. Suvari and Mr. Sheehy relating 10 to document preservation or instructions. I also reviewed the back-up tape catalogs of Tricia Suvari 11 and Douglas Sheehy's email which show the dates and subject matters of their emails for similar 12 documents. The only catalogs of backup tapes that were produced to us that show some level of 13 detail for employees are dated October 31, 2003, November 5, 2003, and December 3, 2003. A 14 September 13, 2003 tape also shows some detail but not of the personnel who are most relevant to 15 this case. A review of these sources, produced or not produced, did not reveal the names of any 16 email subjects that appear to be related to instruction to preserve documents for this litigation. There 17 were no titles such as, "Important" or "New Company Policy" or "Please Read" that would cause 18 one to look at the email as containing important instructions. 19 2. I have also reviewed the catalog descriptions of each email in the inbox and deleted 20 items folder for each current and former defendant and I did not see any subjects that appeared to be 21 related to preservation instructions. 22 3. Finally, I reviewed the two privilege logs produced by defendants and there appear to 23 be no emails related to preservation instructions that appeared on those logs. 24 4. Plaintiff served their first request to produce documents on defendants in September 25 2004. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and local rules, plaintiff could not 26 have served them earlier. Also, on September 20, 2004, plaintiff and defendants exchanged their 27 initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). 28 KATHREIN SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PROD & FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - C-03-3709-SI -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KATHREIN SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PROD & FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - C-03-3709-SI T:\CasesSF\CV Therapeutics\DEC00029090.doc 5. Attached is a true and correct copy of the following exhibit: Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. Exhibit A: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 17th day of March, 2006, at San Francisco, California. /s/ REED R. KATHREIN REED R. KATHREIN -2- 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 17, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 3 the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail 4 addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have 5 mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF 6 participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ REED R. KATHREIN REED R. KATHREIN LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) CAND-ECF Page 1 of 2 Mailing Information for a Case 3:03-cv-03709 Electronic Mail Notice List The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. Aida Acevedo; Elizabeth J. Coughlin; Patrick H. Dawes Paul M. Handler, Esq Sean A. Jigarjian CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM Robert D. Johnson Michele R. Kathrein; Reed S. Lerach William L. Pomerantz Jay J. Robbins Darren Todd Snow Peter C. Tang; John Wahba; Sylvia Manual Notice List The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into 3/17/2006 CAND-ECF Page 2 of 2 your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients. (No manual recipients) 3/17/2006

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?