Lu v. Align Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 174 May 18, 2021 Discovery Dispute re Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 11.(vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, et al., 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiffs, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Case No. 18-cv-06720-LHK (VKD) ORDER RE MAY 18, 2021 DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES NOS. 9 AND 11 Re: Dkt. No. 174 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff SEB Investment Management AB (“SEB”) and defendant Align Technology, Inc. 15 (“Align”) dispute whether SEB has provided complete responses to Align’s Interrogatories Nos. 9 16 and 11. Dkt. No. 174. The Court held a hearing on the matter on June 1, 2021. Dkt. No. 178. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The parties dispute whether SEB should be required to supplement its answers to the following interrogatories: Interrogatory No. 9: For each transaction identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 7, identify each PERSON with whom YOU consulted OR conferred before engaging in the transaction. Interrogatory No. 11: Identify AND describe the role, job, title, AND dates of employment of ALL PERSONS involved in OR responsible for (including, but not limited to, officers, directors, trustees, managers, brokers, investment consultants, FINANCIAL ADVISORS, analysts, OR PORTFOLIO MANAGERS) YOUR decision(s) to purchase, sell, hold, OR otherwise acquire OR dispose of ALIGN SECURITIES from January 1, 2018 to present. 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 174-1 at 5. As presented in the parties’ joint submission, the issue in dispute was whether these interrogatories encompass the identification of persons who may have provided advice to SEB concerning “investment strategy,” even if that advice was not about a particular 1 transaction. During the hearing, it appeared that the parties’ disagreement might not be material to 2 SEB’s interrogatory answers. However, as the matter has been briefed and argued, the Court will 3 decide it. 4 Interrogatory No. 9 plainly requires SEB to identify each person with whom it consulted or 5 conferred before engaging in the relevant transactions. The interrogatory is not limited to 6 conference or consultation about a specific transaction, but encompasses advice bearing on each 7 transaction that SEB ultimately made. If SEB obtained strategic investment advice that it 8 considered in any way before engaging in the relevant transactions (whether it relied on the advice 9 in whole or in part, or rejected the advice), it must disclose the person or persons with whom it 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 consulted or conferred to obtain that advice. Interrogatory No. 11 is limited to persons involved in or responsible for SEB’s decisions to 12 transact in Align securities during the specified time period. SEB’s obligation to identify such 13 persons does not depend on whether the person was a provider of strategic investment advice, but 14 on whether the person was “involved in” or “responsible for” SEB’s decisions. SEB must identify 15 all such persons. A person is not involved in or responsible for decision-making if he or she 16 merely provides advice to someone else who has a decision-making role. 17 SEB must either amend its responses to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 11 to comply with the 18 foregoing discussion, or it must advise Align in writing that it has no amendments to make 19 because its existing answers fully respond to these interrogatories. Any amended responses must 20 be served by June 15, 2021 and must be verified, unless the parties agree to a different deadline. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2021 23 24 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 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?