Wu v. Stitt et al

Filing 145

ORDER re 125 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 7/6/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2010)

Download PDF
In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Doc. 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION No. C07-02268 RMW (HRL) INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS *E-FILED 07-06-2010* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / Plaintiffs in this shareholder derivative action have noticed for hearing on July 13, 2010 a motion to compel Extreme Networks, Inc. (Extreme) to produce documents in response to plaintiffs's First Set of Requests for Production (Docket No. 125). In very broad terms, the twenty-five requests at issue seek documents about: (a) (b) (c) the Special Committee and its investigation and analysis; the Special Committee's decision not to charge individual defendants; the analysis and calculation of damages to the company as a result of the alleged stock option backdating; (d) (e) (f) the stock option grants at issue as well as option grant practices; Extreme's financial restatement; and Compensation Committee and Audit Committee meeting minutes. Plaintiffs tell this court in their motion papers that so far, they have received a mere trickle of documents from Extreme along with a host of spurious objections. On the other hand, Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extreme crows over the 46 binders of documents it has produced, earnestly claiming that they are the "most highly relevant" documents in the case, and suggesting that these are the ones "sought" by plaintiffs. The court wonders if the parties are talking about the same twenty-five requests for production. To compound its wonderment, this court has been told that both meet-and-confer efforts and--apparently--additional document productions have occurred since the motion was filed (and, perhaps, since some or all of the subsequent briefing). In short, the court is not prepared to address a motion where the issues to be decided are so murky. It needs some clarification, and then it will focus on getting the plaintiffs the information that reasonably pertains to their claims. Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 1. By July 26, 2010 Extreme will produce all documents responsive to the requests United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for production that it intends to produce. It does not have to produce documents that it claims are privileged or covered by the work product doctrine. It may also withhold documents over which it has a seriously maintained objection, one which will require the court's attention.1 All withheld documents must be appropriately identified, along with the basis for withholding them. 2. By August 9, 2010 lead trial counsel for plaintiffs and Extreme will meet in person and in good faith seek to resolve all issues with respect to the requests for production. By August 16, 2010, they will submit a Joint Report, not to exceed 20 pages, describing the issues agreed upon and then detailing each of the disputed issues and their respective positions on them. 3. The court will consider issues raised for the first time in plaintiffs' reply papers (i.e., privilege log, back-up tapes, multiple copies of the same documents). If agreement cannot be reached on them during the face-to-face meeting between lead trial counsel, then Extreme may file a supplemental opposition, not to exceed 6 pages, by August 18, 2010 and plaintiffs a reply, not to exceed 3 pages, by August 20, 2010. No order has been issued staying discovery or limiting its scope, and a desire to have one or the other is not a valid objection to the discovery now sought by plaintiffs. 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: 4. The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents is continued to August 31, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Lead trial counsel will attend in person. SO ORDERED. July 6, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:07-cv-02268-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Aelish Marie Baig Alan R Plutzik AelishB@rgrdlaw.com, khuang@rgrdlaw.com aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com, ptoovey@bramsonplutzik.com aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com cwood@rgrdlaw.com mshachmurove@sbtklaw.com Alan Roth Plutzik Christopher Martin Wood Emanuel Shachmurove Eric L. Zagar ezagar@btkmc.com, dalbert@btkmc.com, der_filings@btkmc.com, rwinchester@btkmc.com, tkao@btkmc.com Frank James Johnson frankj@johnsonbottini.com, brett@johnsonbottini.com, frankb@johnsonbottini.com, paralegal@johnsonbottini.com John Henry Hemann Jonathan DeGooyer jhemann@morganlewis.com, yandrada@morganlewis.com jdegooyer@morganlewis.com, lwalker@morganlewis.com United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joseph Edward Floren jfloren@morganlewis.com, mweiler@morganlewis.com, rluke@morganlewis.com Laura Alexis Lee llee@morganlewis.com ltfisher@bramsonplutzik.com, dschroeder@bramsonplutzik.com Lawrence Timothy Fisher Lucas F. Olts Robert Bramson Lolts@rgrdlaw.com, e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com Shawn A. Williams shawnw@rgrdlaw.com, cwood@rgrdlaw.com, e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com, e_file_sf@rgrdlaw.com, jdecena@rgrdlaw.com, khuang@rgrdlaw.com, lolts@rgrdlaw.com, ptiffith@rgrdlaw.com, travisd@rgrdlaw.com Tera Marie Heintz theintz@morganlewis.com, dlang@morganlewis.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. 4

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?