Lowinger v. MGM Mirage et al
Filing
178
ORDER Denying 158 Motion to Lift Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/21/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
7
8
In re MGM MIRAGE
2:09-cv-01558-GMN -VCF
SECURITIES LITIGATION.
ORDER
9
10
11
Before the court is plaintiffs’ Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Luzerne County Retirement
12
System, and Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement (hereinafter “Lead Plaintiffs”) Motion to
13
Lift Stay. (#158). Defendants Robert C. Baldwin, Daniel J. D'Arrigo, MGM Mirage, and James J.
14
Murren filed an Opposition (#167), and Lead Plaintiffs filed a Reply (#173). The court held a hearing
15
on June 20, 2012.
16
Background
17
A complaint commencing this action was filed on August 19, 2009, asserting violations of §§
18
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased
19
publically traded securities of MGM between August 2, 2007, and March 5, 2009. (#1). On October
20
25, 2010, the court entered an order appointing Lead Plaintiffs, Lead Counsel, and Liaison Counsel for
21
the class (#85), and on January 14, 2011, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint (#94). On
22
April 17, 2012, after the court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint on puzzle-pleading grounds, with
23
leave to amend, Lead Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for violations of Federal Securities
24
Laws (#152). On the same day, Lead Plaintiffs requested a status conference. (#153). Defendants filed
25
a response to Lead Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference, asserting that the status conference was
1
2
“unwarranted” and “makes no sense.” (#157)1. On May 8, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs’ counsel learned that
3
allegedly relevant evidence stored in a warehouse had been destroyed. (#158).
4
Lead Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to lift stay on May 11, 2012. (#158). On the same day,
5
Lead Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for order shortening time.
(#160).
On May 14, 2012,
6
defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte motion. (#162). On May 15, 2012, the court entered an
7
order denying Lead Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for order shortening time (#160), setting a briefing
8
schedule for the motion to lift stay, and scheduling a hearing for June 20, 2012. (#164). On May 29,
9
2012, defendants filed their opposition to the motion to lift stay. (#167). On May 30, 2012, defendants
10
filed a joint motion to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
11
(#170). On June 11, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to lift stay. (#173).
12
Motion To Lift Stay
13
A.
Relevant Law
14
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) provides that “all discovery
15
and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss...” 15 U.S.C. §
16
78u-4(b)(3)(B).
The purpose and intent of the stay is: (i) “to prevent unnecessary imposition of
17
discovery costs on defendants;” and (ii) to ensure that class action complaints “stand or fall based on the
18
actual knowledge of the plaintiffs rather than information produced by the defendants after the action
19
has been filed.” SG Cowen Sec. Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 189 F.3d 909, 911-12 (9th Cir. 1999). See also
20
In re Metro. Sec. Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46033, at *11-*12 (E.D. Wash. 2005).
21
The stay provision of the PSLRA protects defendants from (i) being coerced into a premature
22
settlement of a frivolous claim to avoid the costs and burdens imposed by discovery (see H.R. Conf.
23
Rep. No. 104-369, at 37 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 736); and (ii) a fishing expedition
24
designed to find actionable conduct not pled in the complaint (see S. Rep. No. 104-98, at 14 (1995),
25
1
On June 14, 2012, the court entered an order denying Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for a status conference. (#176).
2
1
2
reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679, 693); 8 WorldCom, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 305; In re Lernout &
3
Hauspie Sec. Litig., 214 F. Supp. 2d 100, 106 (D. Mass. 2002).
4
The mandatory stay can only be lifted in specific circumstances. Before lifting the PSLRA
5
discovery stay, the court must find that: (i) the request is sufficiently particularized; and (ii) maintenance
6
of the stay would either generate impermissible risk of the destruction of evidence or create undue
7
prejudice. See Waldman v. Wachovia Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1988, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). A
8
discovery request is “particularized” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B) if it seeks a
9
“clearly defined universe of documents” and other information. In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 234 F.
10
Supp. 2d 301, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 2002 U.S. Dist.
11
LEXIS 26261, at *32 (S.D. Tex. 2002), aff’d sub nom. Blaz v. Belfer, 368 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2004); In
12
re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 220 F.R.D. 246, 250 (D. Md. 2004).
13
B.
Lead Plaintiffs’ Argument
14
Lead Plaintiffs argue that the automatic stay should be lifted in order to permit Lead Plaintiffs to
15
conduct limited discovery2 regarding the destroyed documents. (#158). Lead Plaintiffs assert that no
16
later than February 2012, defendants knew that 500 boxes containing “highly relevant” evidence had
17
been destroyed, yet failed to inform this court or Lead Plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. Lead Plaintiffs assert that
18
they do not accuse defendants of intentionally destroying the evidence, but are concerned with the safety
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
Lead Plaintiffs assert that they need to discover: (I) the name, address and contact information for the person(s) (“Individual(s)”)
who had the 500 boxes destroyed and/or sold the documents to a shredding company; (ii) how much cash the Individual(s)
received for allegedly selling the documents; (iii) the name of the shredding/recycling company the Individual(s) sold the
documents to; (iv) the name(s) of any and all individuals who have information relevant to this spoliation; (v) information related
to whether Defendants reported this alleged crime to any state or federal criminal authorities and, if so, when; (vi) the results of
Defendants’ efforts, if any, to assess exactly which portion of the missing documents exist in another format; (vii) the names, titles
and contact information for all persons who have knowledge of the document destruction; (viii) when Defendants were first
advised of the document destruction and by whom; (ix) all facts and documents related to Defendants’ investigation, if any, of
this spoliation; (x) information concerning any financial, business, familial or other relationships between the shredding company,
the Individual and MGM or any of the Individual Defendants (or their agents), or its counsel; (xi) information regarding
Defendants’ purported compliance with the PSLRA and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preservation requirements with respect
to both hard copy and electronic documents; (xii) information concerning whether and when a litigation hold was sent once
Defendants reasonably anticipated this litigation; and (xiii) information concerning Defendants’ retention policy and procedures
with respect to hard copy documents. (#158).
3
1
2
of the remaining relevant documents. Id. Lead Plaintiffs argue that “given the lack of candor,” the
3
court should order defendants to formally provide the information outlined above pursuant to Federal
4
Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. Id. Lead Plaintiffs ask this court to enter an order stating that (1)
5
Lead Plaintiffs may notice and depose up to eight (8) individuals with knowledge of the destruction of
6
evidence at issue here, (2) defendants shall provide full and accurate responses to Lead Plaintiffs’
7
document requests and interrogatories regarding the document destruction at issue here, and (3) the
8
parties shall meet and confer and negotiate in good faith regarding any additional discovery about the
9
document destruction at issue here consistent with this District’s Local Rules. (#158-1).
10
1.
Lifting Stay Warranted
11
Lead Plaintiffs assert that they are not seeking discovery to “bolster their claims,” as the
12
discovery sought is “limited to discovering facts about the destructed (sic) and relevant evidence.”
13
(#158). They argue that the Congressional record shows that the purpose of the stay is to protect
14
“defendants from plaintiffs who would use discovery to substantiate an initially frivolous complaint” or
15
who would impose “massive discovery costs on Defendants to obtain an early settlement.” Newby v.
16
Enron Corp., 338 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir 2003); Lernout, 214 F. Supp. 2d at 106; accord WorldCom,
17
234 F. Supp. 2d at 305. Here, Lead Plaintiffs assert, “[n]either rationale underlying the PSLRA’s
18
discovery stay” undermines the partial lifting of the stay. Id. See also In re S. Pac. Funding Corp. Sec.
19
Litig., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174-75 (D. Or. 1999).
20
a.
Undue Prejudice/Risk of Destruction
21
Lead Plaintiffs argue that “[s]uch a significant destruction of relevant information is prima facie
22
evidence of prejudice, and satisfies a plaintiff’s burden of showing “improper or unfair detriment.”
23
(#173); See In re Lernout & Hauspie Sec. Litig., 214 F. Supp. 2d 100, 107 (D. Mass. 2002); In re Smith
24
Barney Transfer Agent Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58070, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (a showing of
25
imminent destruction is sufficient to lift PSLRA discovery stay); Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., 2007 U.S.
4
1
2
Dist. LEXIS 30309, at *12 (D. Conn. 2007) (same); In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters., Inc., 347 F. Supp.
3
2d 538, 542 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (“The destruction of the documents . . . will likely cause actual prejudice
4
to the Plaintiffs.”).
5
Lead Plaintiffs argue that “given the gravity and uncertainty regarding the spoliation at issue,”
6
they “must be given an opportunity to discover facts regarding the intentional destruction of relevant
7
evidence.” (#158). Lead Plaintiffs assert that without the information sought, Lead Plaintiffs will not
8
be able to assess (1) whether documents are being preserved, (2) whether Lead Plaintiffs can and should
9
move to enjoin Defendants from further destruction of evidence, or (3) whether Lead Plaintiffs can and
10
should seek adverse inferences against Defendants for the destruction that has already occurred.3 Id.
11
Lead Plaintiffs also assert that they must be permitted to conduct discovery to aid in their efforts
12
to preserve evidence themselves, as they “are not required to rely on the assurances of counsel that
13
relevant evidence will be preserved.” Sarantakis, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14349, at *10. See also In re
14
Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. and ERISA Litig., 220 F.R.D. 246, 251 (D. Md. 2004).
The discovery, Lead
15
Plaintiffs assert, will allow them to determine “exactly what occurred here and to learn the full extent to
16
which Lead Plaintiffs have been prejudiced.” Id.
17
b.
Particularized Discovery
18
Lead Plaintiffs assert that the documents and other information sought, as outlined above, are
19
sufficiently particularized, as they concern one subject – the willful spoilation of material evidence. Id.
20
See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(b)(3)(B).
21
...
22
23
24
25
3
It is Lead Plaintiffs’ position that they may be entitled to an adverse inference against defendants for the document destruction.
See World Courier v. Barone, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31714, at *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (sanctions awarded over objection that
spoliator was not a party to the action because “[t]his argument lacks merit because it overlooks a party’s affirmative duty to
preserve relevant evidence both prior to and during trial” and “courts have extended the affirmative duty to preserve evidence to
instances when that evidence is not directly within the party’s custody or control so long as the party has access to or indirect
control over such evidence”); Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1329 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Surely a finding of bad faith will suffice,
but so will simple notice of potential relevance to the litigation.”).
5
1
2
C.
Defendants’ Arguments
3
Defendants explain to the court that in the related state court action (In re CityCenter Constr.
4
Litig., Perini Subgroup, Case No. A-10-612676-B) (hereinafter “Perini Litigation”), Judge Gonzales
5
appointed a Discovery Committee who selected Litigation Document Group (“LDG”) to serve as the
6
central document depository for the action. (#167). Other images not stored in this facility were imaged
7
and stored electronically. Id. On February 17, 2012, LDG notified counsel for CityCenter that boxes
8
were missing, and on February 22, 2012, it was conveyed to counsel that the boxes may have been
9
stolen by a former employee in June or July of 2011. Id. LDG identified the missing boxes using an
10
index prepared when the boxes were deposited, and counsel informed Judge Gonzales and the other
11
parties that the particular boxes were missing. Id.
12
Defendants assert that the documents relevant to this action are not in peril of destruction that
13
would warrant lifting the congressionally mandated stay, and that defendants were actually the victims
14
of the criminally destructive actions. Id. The destruction, defendants assert, is in the past, not the
15
future, and the court in the Perini Litigation has addressed the destruction and ensured that the parties
16
have taken preventative measures to safeguard the documents.4 Id. Defendants argue that the broad
17
ranging discovery sought is unnecessary and inappropriate during the stay. Id.
18
1.
Relevance of Documents Destroyed
19
Defendants assert that, for purposes of this motion only, they assume that some of the
20
construction files taken from LDG may have contained some documents relevant to this action. Id.
21
However, defendants stress, “none of the boxes CityCenter deposited at LDG contained documents
22
taken from the custodial files of the Individual Defendants in this case, or of any members of the boards
23
of directors of MGM or CityCenter.” Id. The custodians of the boxes deposited with LDG were
24
4
25
On February 29, 2012, Judge Gonzales held a status conference, where the Chief Executive Officer from LDG identified the
suspect and explained that other clients had been the victim of this destruction as well. Id. The Discovery Committee was ordered
to discuss how to keep documents safe from now on, and the committee replaced LDG with two new court-appointed depositories,
one for paper files and one for electronically stored information. Id.
6
1
2
persons or entities involved in the CityCenter construction project, not with MGM’s or CityCenter’s
3
financial reporting, investor relations, corporate accounting or top management. Id. Defendants also
4
assert that “more than 95% of CityCenter’s document production in the Perini Litigation that was
5
imaged in electronic form remains safe, both on deposit with the central document repository and in
6
duplicate in the possession of CityCenter’s counsel.” Id.
7
2.
No “Immediate Peril”
8
Defendants assert that the PSLRA presumes that parties will take necessary steps to preserve
9
relevant documents, and the Lead Plaintiffs have not identified a single document5 that they feel is
10
threatened with immediate or probable destruction.” Id.
Defendants argue that all of the necessary
11
precautions have been put into place, and the circumstances of the theft, as described above, do not
12
establish fault on the part of any party that now has control over the documents, much less the
13
defendants here. Id. Since the individual who destroyed the document is no longer able to access the
14
documents, there is no threat that documents will be destroyed in the future. Id.
15
3.
No “Undue Prejudice”
16
Defendants argue that no undue prejudice will result if the stay is not lifted, and that Lead
17
Plaintiffs have not provided any support for their assertion that it will. Id. Even in actions where the
18
defendants were accused of spoilation, defendants assert, “the approach required by PSLRA was to,
19
first, determine whether the case survives the motions to dismiss, and to permit discovery relating to the
20
allegations of spoilation only if and when the case survives the motions to dismiss.” Id. See In re
21
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Secs. Litig., 02 MDL 1484(MP), 01CV6881(MP), 2004
22
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2215, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2004) (holding that allegations that defendant had
23
24
5
25
In re Rambus, Inc. Secs. Litig., C 06-4346 JF (HRL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38056, at*6 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2007) (holding that
where alleged past destruction of documents is attributed to the defendants themselves, such destruction is “insufficient to satisfy
the ‘preserve evidence’ prong for lifting the discovery stay in this securities [litigation]” where the plaintiff fails to identify with
particularity any documents in peril of being destroyed in this litigation).
7
1
2
spoliated emails did not support lifting PSLRA stay; court would “respond with appropriate sanctions if
3
it determines, should this case go so far as discovery, that this is in fact what happened”).
4
Defendants assert that they should not be burdened by unnecessary broad-ranging discovery,
5
when Lead Plaintiffs have not demonstrated an emergency warranting such extraordinary relief. Id.
6
D.
Discussion
7
As an initial matter, based on the record before the court, the court finds no merit in Lead
8
Plaintiffs’ claims that defendants concealed the destruction of evidence from Lead Plaintiffs or from the
9
court.6
10
The court finds that lifting the stay is unwarranted. The PSLRA discovery stay may only be
11
lifted upon a finding that: (i) the request is sufficiently particularized; and (ii) maintenance of the stay
12
would either generate impermissible risk of the destruction of evidence or create undue prejudice. See
13
Waldman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1988, at *2. The discovery order proposed by Lead Plaintiffs (#15814
1) is unspecified in scope and is open-ended. Id. The destruction of evidence cannot be undone by
15
discovery, the Lead Plaintiffs have not been prejudiced by the destruction in a manner than can be cured
16
by conducting discovery at this stage, there is no showing of a risk of further destruction of evidence,
17
and defendants and their counsel did not violate any Federal Rule or any provision of the PSLRA. Id.
18
In light of the purposes underlying the mandatory stay, particularly to avoid costs and burdens imposed
19
by discovery, this court will not lift the stay to permit the discovery proposed by Lead Plaintiffs. See
20
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 37 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 736); S. Rep. No.
21
104-98, at 14 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679, 693) (the purpose of the stay is (i) to protect
22
defendants from being coerced into a premature settlement of a frivolous claim to avoid the costs and
23
burdens imposed by discovery; and (ii) to protect defendants from a fishing expedition designed to find
24
25
6
On March 2, 2012, the Review Journal ran an article regarding the destruction of the documents in the Perini Litigation.
(Court’s Exhibit 1).
8
1
2
actionable conduct not pled in the complaint). See also Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 744 (1986)
3
(courts interpret a “statute in the way that is most consistent with Congress’ broader purpose”).
4
Accordingly and for good cause shown,
5
IT IS ORDERED that Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (#158) is DENIED.
6
DATED this 21st day of June, 2012.
7
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
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?