In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation 02-CV ...securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1023/... · for Production of Documents, served on April 4, 2005. 7. JDSU further

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

BESIROF DECL. ISO JDSU’S OPP. TO MOT. FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY PERIOD TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL)

sf-2233480

JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617) TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563) PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 185053) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles J. Abbe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Applies To: All Actions

Master File No. C 02-1486 CW (EDL)

DECLARATION OF PHILIP T. BESIROF IN SUPPORT OF THE JDSU DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY PERIOD TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 700 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 5

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


MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) 1

sf-2233480

I, PHILIP T. BESIROF, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted

to practice before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP,

counsel of record in this action for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation (“JDSU”), Jozef

Straus, Anthony Muller, and Charles J. Abbe (collectively, the “JDSU Defendants”). I submit

this Declaration in Support of JDSU Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Discovery Period to Conduct Depositions. If called as a

witness, I would testify to the following facts:

2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the email exchange between

Dorothy Fernandez and John Adams, scheduling Scott Parker’s deposition.

3. In October and November 2005, JDSU produced documents identifying

potentially-relevant Nortel employees, namely, Tom Dorval, Ken Bradley, Cinzia Cuneo, and

Dave Hudson. In addition, on November 16, 2005, JDSU produced a memorandum from Jozef

Straus to Maurice Tavares regarding Nortel and Ms. Cuneo.

4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a September 22, 2006 letter

from Philip Besirof to Anthony Harwood.

5. On March 1, 2005, Plaintiffs served JDSU with their first set of requests for

production of documents.

6. On April 5, 2005, JDSU timely served its response to the requests. In its response

(3:24-4:12), JDSU identified the specific files from which it would produce documents:

Except as otherwise specified in response to a particular request, the JDSU Defendants will search for documents in: (1) the central files of the finance, legal, sales, public relations, investor relations, and human resources departments in [the San Jose and Ottawa] facilities; (2) files maintained by or on behalf of Dr. Straus, Mr. Muller, and Mr. Abbe; and (3) any files maintained at JDSU facilities by, or on behalf of, Charles J. Abbe, Keith Bisbee, Donald Bossi, Frank Brofft, Becky Browne, Remi Brunka, Ashok Chandran, Jeff Chase, Dan Clayton, Zita Cobb, Tom Conway, Phil Cracco, Bruce Day, Harry Deffebach, Kerry Dehority, Greg Dougherty, Robert Enos, Steve Fife, Mike Foster, David Fox, Eitan Gertel, Bryan Guckavan, Peter Guglielmi, Jessica Huynh, Joseph Ip, Russ Johnson, Kevin Kalkhoven, Leo Lefebvre, Fred Leonberger, John MacNaughton, Joseph Major, Barbara Mayo, Peter Moore, Steven Moore, Anthony Muller, John Murphy, Scott


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



sf-2233480

Parker, Leo Paoletti, Joe Passarello, Dan Pettit, Michael Phillips, Shelley Pietrusiak, Thomas Pitre, Charles Ragussa, Eric Rasmussen, David Renner, Alison Reynders, Trevor Roots, Donald Scifres, Wilson Sibbett, William Sinclair, Casimir Skrzypczak, Nancy Smith (Klaus), Mark Sobey, Jozef Straus, Sanjay Subhedar, Henry Tang, Maurice Tavares, Scott Tave, Anna Vo-Luong, David Wilson, Alfred Wu, and Joseph Zils (and their personal or executive assistants).

Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of JDSU’s Response to Plaintiffs First Request

for Production of Documents, served on April 4, 2005.

7. JDSU further stated that it would construe “JDS” to mean “JDS Uniphase

Corporation and its current officers, directors, and employees.” (See Ex. 3 at 2:26-28.)

8. The parties had many meet-and-confer discussions regarding the specific files that

JDSU would search in response to Plaintiffs’ request. Through meeting and conferring, JDSU

agreed to search the files of certain persons in addition to those identified in paragraph 6, above.

At no time did JDSU agree to produce documents voluntarily from the files of its non-party

outside law firms.

9. Despite knowing since April 5, 2005 that JDSU would not be producing

documents from the files of its non-party law firms, Plaintiffs waited until early July 2006 to

raise the issue with JDSU, and waited even later to serve their subpoenas on the non-party law

firms.

10. On July 19, 2006, Plaintiffs served a subpoena on Wilson Sonsini. On August 1,

Plaintiffs served subpoenas on Morrison & Foerster, Collette & Erickson, and Sullivan &

Cromwell.

11. The non-party law firms informed Plaintiffs that certain categories of documents

would have limited relevance, as they focus largely on unrelated business issues. Plaintiffs

nevertheless insisted on the production.

12. The non-party law firms began collecting, reviewing, and producing documents on

a rolling basis as quickly as possible, consistent with the scope of the task. Plaintiffs received

privilege logs within thirty days of each production.


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



sf-2233480

13. Through a number of meet-and-confer calls and correspondence starting on

September 11, 2006, Plaintiffs’ counsel were apprised of the production schedule and were

informed immediately of any deviations thereto. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not object to the proposed

production schedule.

14. On October 25, 2006, Leo Lefebvre was deposed. One day before that deposition,

Mr. Lefebvre produced a publicly-available 102-page report. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and

correct copy of the October 24, 2006 email from Timothy Blakely to Anthony Harwood attaching

the report.

15. On February 10, 2006, JDSU made the same report available to Plaintiffs, bearing

Bates number JDSU 1662647-749. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the

February 10, 2006 letter from Philip Besirof to Anthony Howard.

16. On November 17, 2006, Jeff Chase was deposed. Two days before that

deposition, Mr. Chase provided potentially-relevant documents to his counsel. In response,

Mr. Chase’s counsel asked Plaintiffs if they would prefer to postpone Mr. Chase’s deposition.

17. Plaintiffs opted to proceed with Mr. Chase’s deposition on November 17, and

Mr. Chase produced documents that same day. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs finished the deposition

early without asking any questions about the produced documents.

18. Since as early as August 1, 2005, JDSU offered to run queries through its legacy

ERP system for data to which Plaintiffs believed they were entitled. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a

true and correct copy of the August 1, 2005 letter from Terri Garland to Barbara Hart. Plaintiffs

refused to provide queries.

19. On June 14, 2006, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer with their

respective experts about the ERP system so that Plaintiffs could formulate queries.

20. JDSU again met with Plaintiffs multiple times about the legacy ERP systems over

the course of many months and provided Plaintiffs with all requested information about those

systems.

21. On November 7, after many months of JDSU’s efforts to provide Plaintiffs

information about the systems so that they might formulate queries — and more than a month


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



sf-2233480

after the deadline for document discovery — Plaintiffs determined they would not query the

legacy ERP systems for responsive information and instead demanded that JDSU produce all of

the databases. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the November 7, 2006 letter

from John Adams to Timothy Blakely.

22. Despite the set-back, JDSU continues to negotiate in good faith and have met and

conferred with Plaintiffs as recently as November 29, 2006.

23. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the November 7, 2006 letter

from Philip Besirof to Anthony Harwood.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed in San Francisco, California,

on this 30th day of November 2006.

/s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof


Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

26

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN .(BAR NO. 3409q)JORDAN ETH (BAR NO .12161 .7)TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563)ALISON M. TUCHER (BAR NO . 171363)PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 185053)RAYMOND M. HASU (BAR NO.2 58)MORRISON & FOERSTER LIP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-2482 :Telephone. (41:5) .268-7 .000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522dhamda-~M afv.com

Attorneys for Defendants JDS Uniplase Corporation,Jozef Straus, Anthony Muller, and Charles Abb e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

In re ]DS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONSECURITIES. LITIGATION

This Document Relates to : All Actions

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW

JDSU DEFENDANTS' RESPONSETO LEAD PLAINTIFF'S FIRSTREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS

PROPOUNDING PARTY: LEAD PLAINTIFFCONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUSTFUNDS

RESPONDING PARTIES: DEFENDANTSJDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION, JOZEF STR.AUS,ANTHONY MULLER, and CHARLES ABBE

SET NUMBER: ONE

sf-1884127

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Dents JDS Uniphase Corporation

2

3

4

{"iDSt.P), Jozef Straus, Anthony Muller, and Charles Abbe (collectively, the LJDSU

Defendants") hereby submit the following objections and responses to the Lead Plaintiff 's First

Request for Production of Documents, dated March 1, 2005 (the "Requests") ,

The JDSU Defendants have conducted and are continuing to conduct a diligent search for

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

l5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documents in response to Plaintiffs Requests. The JDSU Deefendants have not completed their

investigation of the facts relating to this case, have not completed discovery in this action, and

have not completed preparation for trial . Additional investigation, research, and analysis may

require amendment or revision of these responses. The JDSU Defendants' responses are based on

information presently known to them, and are given without prejudice to the .DSU Defendants'

right to provide or introduce at trial evidence of any subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTION S

1. The JDSU Defendants object to each of the Requests to the extent that it seek s

information or documents that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Moreover, in

responding to these Requests, the .1DSU Defendants concede neither the relevance nor the

materiality of the responsive documents. The JDSU Defendants reserve the right to object to

any further discovery on the topics contained in the Requests and to the admissibility of the

Requests and any response to the Requests, in any filing or proceeding , including at trial.

2. The JDSU Defendants object to each of the Requests to the extent that it seek s

documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege or seeks documents prepared in

anticipation of litigation or for trial, or that are otherwise subject to the attorney work

product doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Any inadvertent production

of privilejed documents shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the JDSU Defendants of the

attorney-client privilege, the work product doctine, or any other applicable privilege or

doctrine .

3 . The JDSU Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they call fo r

production of documents containing trade-secret or con fidential information . Any such

sf-1884127

I

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

documents will be produced in response to the Requests only upon en try of a suitable

protective order, unless other, mutually acceptable Protections are negotiated among counsel .

4. The JDSU Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they call for

discloun of information about individuals where such disclosure would violate th e

individual's privacy rights.

5. The JDSU Defendants object to each of the Requests to the extent it seeks

materials equally available to Lead Plaintiff through public sources or records .

6. The JUSU Defendants object to the definition of"E&Y" as vague, ambiguous,

and overbroad. The JDSU Defendants will construe "E&Y" to mean its outside auditors at

Ernst & Young LLP.

7_ The JDSU Defendants object to the definition of "Financial statements " as vague

and ambiguous. The JDSU Defendants further object to the definition as overbroad an d

unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to impose on the JDSU Defendants a n

obligation to search for documents outside JDSU 's possession , custody, or control.

8. The JDSU Defendants object to the definition of "Working papers' and "work

papers" as vague and ambiguous. The JDSU Defendants further object to the defini tion as

overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to impose on the JDSU

Defendants .an obligation to search for documents outside JDSU's possession, custody, o r

control.

9. The JDSU Defendants object to the definition of "Concerning" to the extent that it

requires the application and disclosure of the subjective legal judgment of the JDSU

Defendants' attorneys and would require a conclusion or opinion of counsel in violation of

the attorney work product doctrine.

16. The JDSU Defendants object to the defini tion of "JDS" as overbroad and unduly

burdensome to the extent that it purpo rts to impose on the JDSU Defendants an obligation to

search . for documents outside JDStJ's possession, custody, or control . The 1OSU Defendants

will construe "IDS" to mean S DS. Uniphase Corporation and its current officers, directors,

and employees .

sf-1884121 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Is

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 _ The JDSU Defendants object to the Requests= including each definition and

instruction contained therein, to the extent that they purport to impose obligations on the

JDSU Defendants that are greater than those imposed by the Federal . Rules ofCivi l

Procedure.

12. The JDSU Defendants object to the Requests, including each Definition an d

Instruction, to the extent that they purport to impose upon the JDSU Defendants an

obligation to identify and produce documents not otherwise contained in files maintained by

the JDSU Defendants, or require the JDSU Defendants to search for and produce documents

not in their own possession, custody, or control

13. The JDSU Defendants object to Instruc tion No. 5 to the extent that it imposes on

the JDSU Defendants an obligation to furnish Lead Plaintiff with a privilege log that contains

more information than required by applicable law. To the extent that a Request on its face

categorically requests privileged documents, no privilege log will be produced .

14 . The JDSU Defendants object to the Requests as a whole as overbroad and unduly

burdensome. Literal compliance with these Requests would require the JDSU Defendants to

search for and produce virtually every document in their possession relating to JDSU during

the period January 1, 1999, to April 4, 2005, even though the vast. majority of such

documents have no bearing on this case . Moreover, JDSU employs thousands of persons

who work in locations throughout North America and abroad. . Requiring the JDSU

Defendants to s=-ch all facilities and: the files of all employees is unduly burdensome and

harassiing. It would be a practical impossibility even to assemble all of the documents that

might be filed for by the Requests. Thus, for the time being, and without prejudice to Lead

Plaintiffs ability to seek additional documents from other locations later, the JDSU

Defendants will search for documents at JDSU's facilities in San Jose and Ottawa . Except as

otherwise specified in response to a particular request , the JDSU Defendants will search for

documents in: (1) the central files of the . finance, legal, sales, public relations , investor

relations, and human resources departments in those facilities ; (2) files maintained by or on

behalf of Dr. Straus, Mr. Muller, and Mr. Abbe; and (3 ) any files maintained at-DSU

sf-1884127

2

3

4

5

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2$

facilities by, or on behalf of Charles J. Abbe, Keith Bisbee, Donald. Bossi, Frank Broom,

Becky Browne, Renti Brunks, Ashok Chandran, Jeff Chase, Dan Clayton, Zita Cobb, Tom

Conway, Phil. Cracco, Bruce Day, Harry Deffebach, Kerry Dehm ity, Greg Dougherty, Robert

Enos, Steve Fife, Mike Foster, David Fox, Eitan Gertel, Bryan Guckavan, Peter Guglielmi,

Jessica Huynh, Joseph Ip, Russ Johnson, Kevin Kalkhoven, Leo Lefebvre, Fred Lxanberger,

John MacNaughton, Joseph Major, Barbara Mayo, Peter Moore, Steven Moore, Anthony

Muller, John Murphy, Scott Parker, Leo Peoletti, Joe Passarello, Dan Pettit, Michael Phillips,

Shelley Pietrusiak, Thomas Pitre, Charles Ragussa, Eric Rasmussen, David Renner, Alison

Reynders, Trevor Roots, Donald Scikes, Wilson Sibbett,'William Sinclair, Casimir

Skrzypczak, Nancy Smith (Klaus), Mark Sobey, Jozef Straus, Sanjay Subhedar, Henry Tang,

Maurice Tavares, Scott Tave, Anna Vo-Luong, David Wilson, Alfred Wu, and Joseph Zils

(and their personal or executive assistants) . To the extent that any of the individuals

identified in this list left JDSU's employment before this lawsuit was filed, JDSU will take

reasonable steps to locate and search any JDSU files that were maintained at M)SU by these

individuals, or on their behalf, during their employment with JDSU .

15 . The JDSCJ Defendants object to the "Relevant Period" demanded by .Plairrtiffas

overbroad and not relevant to the subject matter of this action . To the extent that the JDSU

Defendants agree to produce documents in response to any of the Requests, they agree to

produce documents (1) dated April 1, 1999, to July 26, 2001 ; and (2) dated July 27, 2001, to

September .30, 2001, to the extent that : such . documents discuss the JDSU Defendants'

activities during the purported Class Period.

16. The JDSU Defendants have not completed their investigation of the facts of this cas e

or their preparation for trial. The JDSU Defendants respond to this set of Requests. based on

information currently known to them and reserve the right to supplement, modify, and amend

their responses and assert additional objections should the JDSU Defendants discover additional

facts, documents, or other evidence at a later time. The JDSU Defendants further reserve the

right to make use of any subsequently discovered facts, documents, or other evidence at any

hearing or at trial. -

sf-1884127

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

1$

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2$

26

27

28

17 . Where the JIDSU Defendants state that they will produce documents, this does not

mean that responsive documents exist . It represents only that responsive documents will be

produced if they exist, can be located with reasonable diligence, and are not otherwise protected

from disclosure .

18 . By producing documents, the JDSU Defendants do not concede the relevance or

materiality of the Request or its subject matter. The JDSU Defendants' responses and production

of documents are made subject to all objections as to competency, relevance, materiality,

privilege, and admissibi lity as evidence for any purpose in this action .

19. The JDSU Defendants state these objections without waiving or intending to

waive , but on the contrary preserving and inuring to preserve :

(a) all objections to competency , re levance, materiality , privilege, and

admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the responses to the Requests, the documents

produced, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding in, or the trial of, this o r

any other action;

(b) the right to object on any ground to the use of any of these responses, the

documents produced, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding in, or the tria l

of, this or any other action; and

(c) the right to object on any ground to any other or future discovery requests .

The JDSU Defendants object to the time and place specified for production as unduly

burdensome given the broad scope of these Regt ts, and the large volume of documents

requested. Documents will be produced at a date and time to be mutually agreed upon by

counsel .

SPECIFIC RESPONSES

Subject to and without waiving the JDSU Defendants' General Objections set forth above,

and to the specific objections stated with respect to particular Requests below, the JDSU

Defendants respond to the Requests , subject to the establishment of a confidentiali ty agreement ,

as follows:

sf-.1884127 5

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1$

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All documents concerning: (a) JDS's projected, forecasted,, or actual revenues , including

but not limited to documents comparing projected or forecasted revenues with actual revenues

during a given, period and comparing projected, forecasted, or actual revenues between different

periods; (b) JDS's projected, forecasted, or actual sales of Products, including but not limited to

documents comparing projected or forecasted sales with actual sales during a given period and

comparing projected, forecasted, or actual sales between different periods ; (c) JDS's projected,

forecasted, or actual demand for Products, including but not limited to documents comparing

projected or forecasted demand with actual demand during a given period and comparing

projected, forecasted, or actual demand between different periods ; (d) JDS's projected,

forecasted, or actualinventory of Products, including, but not limited to documents comparing

projected or forecasted inventory with actual . inventory during a. given period and comparing

projected, forecasted, or actual inventory between different periods; or (e) any variation between

projected or forecasted and actual revenue, sales of Products, demand for Products, or inventory

of Products.

RESPONSE T REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I

The 3DSU Defendants incx orate by reference each General Objection into . their

response to this Request. The, JDSU Defendants fur her object to this Request because it is

overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks an enormous volume of information that is neither

relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead : to

the discovery of admissible evidence. The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because

it is vague and ambiguous, and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable

particularity. Read literally, Lead Plaintiff's. Request seeks `°all" documents created by all JDSU

employees reflecting every potential or actual sale ofJDSU's products, The JDSU Defendants

also object to this Request to the extent .that it requires creation of a new document .

Subject to the above objections and incorporaWig by reference the General Objections ,

and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as described i n

sf-1884127

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1.5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to. produce documents discussing actual and

forecasted revenue at the business unit and company-wide levels; actual and forecasted sales and

estimates of demand for JDSU's products, at the product line, business unit, and company-wide

levels; and gross and net inventory at the business unit and company-wide levels . Those

documents will include, but not be limited to, the following documents : materials from quarterly

meetings with major customers; Audit Committee Reports and packages provided to the Audit

Committee; Annual Plan reports prepared for JDSU's Board of Directors ; Financial and

Operations Committee Review reports; flash reports forecasting .]DSU's revenue or sales; internal

reports discussing plans to expander contract JDSU's manufacturing capacity; Standard & Poor's

Corporate Value Consulting reports discussing the estimation of fair market value of certain asset

groupings ofJDSU; and documents addressing. or commenting on those reports .

REOUES'T FOR PRODUUBON NO 2 :

All documents concerning meetings of the Board of Directors, including but not limited

Case] minutes and their attachments, agendaas and their attachments, board books, board packets,

presentation materials, and documents distributed among or issued by directors, officers o r

Shareholders in con tion with any meeting of the Board of Directors .

RESPONSE T REQUEST FOR PRODU ON NO. 2:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into thei r

response to this Request, The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it is vague

and ambiguous, and fails to describe. the documents sought with reasonable particularity . The

JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is unduly burdensome and overbroad in

that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence .

Subject to the above objections'and incorporating by reference the General Objections,

and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce minutes of, and materials

distributed at, meetings of the Board of Directors, to the extent that they discuss : demand for

JDSU's products; actual or forecasted financial results; efforts to expand or contract

sf-1884127 7

manirkturing capacity or headcount ; revenue recognition; inventory levels ; goodwill; accounting

2

3

4

.5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

1s

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

practices ; forecasting of revenues or sales, financial statements; financial reporting; or mergers

with SDI, OCLI, or E-TEK. .

RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3:

All documents concerning the Pitre E-mail, the Redbook, preparation or distribution of the

Redbook, or the Redbook Team, including without limitation all Redbooks prepared during the

Relevant . Period and documents sufficient to show the names and office locations of the members

of to Redbook Team or persons responsible for preparing the kedbook .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO .3:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each feral Objection into thei r

response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it is

overbroad in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any

party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . The JDSU

Defendants further object to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, especially with

respect to the terms "Pitre E-mail," "Redbook," and "Redbook Team," and fails to describe the

documents sought with reasonable particularity . The JDSU Defendants understand the term

"Pitre E-mail" to. mean the e-mail referenced in paragraph 18 of the Second Amended

Consolidated Complaint. The JDSU Defendants understand "Redbook" to mean the `Build Plan"

reports prepared by certain JDSU employees, including Thomas Pure, in Ottawa.

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections, the

JDSU Defendants ague to produce all documents discussing the Pitre E-mail, the Redbook, and

preparation or distribution of the Redbook . The JDSU Defendants will search for such

documents in all files listed in General Objection No. 14 and in the files of all persons listed as

recipients of the Pitre E-mail .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4.

All documents provided to or generated at Corporate concerning the Oracle System or any

other computerized system used by 30S for tracking revenues, sales, finished and unfinished

inventory, customer orders, or shipments of Productr,

st.1884127

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ND 4 :

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The JDSIJ Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into thei r

response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request, which seeks "a11"

of the documents it describes, because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks an

enormous volume of information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in

this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . The JDSU

Defendants also object to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, especially with respect

to the term "provided to or generated at Corporate regarding the Oracle System or any other

computerized system," and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity .

Read literally, Lead Plaintiffs Request seeks "all" documents generated by "computerized

systems" relating to revenues, sales, inventory, orders, or shipments .

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections, th e

JDSU Defendants agree to produce : documents sufficient to explain JDSCJ's use of computerized

systems for tracking revenues, sales, finished and unfinished inventory, customer orders, or

shipments of products; documents discussing the implementation and . capabilities of such

systems ; and the Oracle General Ledger Accounting Definitions.


All documents concerning : (a) JDS's write-down of approximately $270 million i n

inventory for the quarter ended Jime 30, 2001, announced on Ju ly 26, 2001; (b) JDS 's revised

earnings per share for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001, announced on July 26, 2041 ; (c) JDS's

write-down ofapproximately $13 b il lion in goodwill related to the acquisition of E-TEK,

announced on .July 26 , 2001 ; (d) JDS's write-down of approximately $44.8 billion in total

goodwill, announced on July .26, 2001 ; or (e) JDS 's Global Realignment Program or "Blocking

Program . "

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each feral Objection into their

response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it i s


sf 1884127

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in-this acti on nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidenm The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because

it is vague and ambiguous , and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable

particularity . The JOSU Defendants also :object to this Request to the extent that i t requi re s

creation ofnew documents. The JDSU Defendants further object that the term "Blocking

Prngrani" is vague and ambiguous .

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General objections ,

and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as desc ribed in.

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents that discuss: JDSU's

write-down of excess inventory for the quarter ended June 30, 2041, as announced on July 26,

2001 ; JDSU's earnings per share for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001, as announced on

July 26, 2001 ; JDSU's writ -down of goodwill, as announced on July 26, 2001 ; and the initiation

of JDSU's Global Realignment Program.

'FAQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:

All documents concerning internal accounting records, financial reports, and financia l

statements provided to or generated at Corporate for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2044, 2001

and 2002 or the fiscal quarters ending December 31, 1999 through September 30, 2001, including

but not limited to documents concerning projected, forecasted or actual operating results,

documents forming the basis for such internal accounting records, financial reports and financial

statements, and work papers and proposed adjustments .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General . Objection into their

response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it is


relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence . The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because

it is vague and ambiguous, especially with respect to the terms ` internal accounting records,"

"financial repo rts," "financial statements ,," "work papers," and "proposed adjustments," and fails

sf 1S84127 1C

to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity . Read literally, Plaintiff's Request .

2

34

6

.7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

I8

19

20

21 :

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

seeks "a11" financial documents at JDSU that support JDSU's general ledger .

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections;


General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce the following corporate-level

documents and business-unit level documents provided to the corporate level: quarterly trial

balances; forecasts of JDSU's financial results ; reporting packages provided from the operating

units to the corporate level to be used for consolidation, review, and control purposes ; reports to

the Audit Committee discussing JDSU's actual or forecasted financial results ; Annual Plan

reports prepared for JDSU's Board of Directors ; Financial and Operations Committee Review

reports; flash reports forecasting JDSU's revenue ; and documents exchanged between fDSU and

its outside auditors that discuss JDSU's actual or forecasted financial results .

RE VEST FOR .PRODUC TION NO.7:

All documents concerning meetings at which: (a) JDS's historical, projected, forecasted

or actual revenues; (b) sales of Products; (c) demand for Proddiacts; (d) customer orders; (e)

inventory of Products; (f) the preparation of JDS financial statements; nr (g) ]DS financial

statements and/or their compliance or conforanty with GAAP was discussed .

RESPONSE T REQUEST FG PRODUCTION NO .


response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants farther object to this Request because it is


relevant to the claims or defenses of any pasty in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to


it is vague and ambiguous and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable

particularity. Read literally, Lead. Plaintiff's Request seeks, for instance, "all" documents

concerning every sales meeting.

The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is duplica tive of other

Requests . Specifically, this Request seeks documents that Lead Plaintiff already has requested i n

sf 1884127

2

3

4S

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1 9

2021

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Requests 1, 2, 6, 9, 33, and 35 . To the limited extent this Request is not duplicative of

Requests 1, 2, 6, 9, 33, and 35 (as those Requests do not seek `call" documents concerning

meetings where "sales of .Products " or "customer orders" were discussed), the Request is

overbroad and u ndnly burdensome .

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objetions,

and to the extent such . documents can be located after a reasonably diligent, search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents that discuss meetings

where the following topics were discussed : JDSU's forecasted or actual revenues at the business-

unit or corporate-wide levels; sales of products at the business-unit or corporate-wide levels;

demand for products at the business-unit or corporate-wide levels ; customer orders at the

business-unit or corporate-wide levels ; inventory of products at the business-unit or corporate-

wide levels ; the preparation of JDSU financial statements ; or JDSU's financial statements or their

compliance or conformity with GAAP .

RE ST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8;

All documents or communica tions concerning JDS's accounting policies or practices

relating to : (a) recognition of revenue ; (b) establishment of reserves for bad debts ; (e) inventory.

or excess inventory; or (d) goodwill, enterprise goodwill, or intangible assets, and documents

concerning meetings at which these accounting policies or practices were discussed .

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General-Objection into their

response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it is vague

and ambiguous, and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity . The

.IDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is duplicative of other Requests . The

JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is unduly burdensome and overbroad in

that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The JDSU Defendants

understand Lead Plaintiff to be seeking JDSU's formal written policies and practices, and

documents discussing such policies. -

3f-I 84I27 12

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference. the General Objections,

2

3

4

5

6

7


General Objection 14, the JDSU Deefendants agree to produce (1) corporate-level policies and

procedures regarding recognition of revenue ; establishment of reserves for bad debts; inventory

or excess inventory ; and goodwill, enterprise goodwill, or intangible assets; and (2) documents

regarding meetings where such policies and procedures were discussed .

REOIJEST FOR PRODUCON NO. 9.

All documents concerning. (a) any potential or actual write-off of accounts or

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

adjustments with respect to JDS financial statements, including but not limited to any potential or

actual write-down or write-off of inventory or goodwill ; (1) any potential or actual charge taken

against JDS's assets or financial statements ; (c) any potential or actual impairment of JDS's

assets or goodwill; (d) any potential or actual establishment of reserves for obsolete inventory or

accounts receivable; (e) any potential or actual restatement of JDS financial statements or results ;

or (f) actual or potential accounting errors or accounting irregularities affecting ]DS financial

statements, including but not limited to documents concerning any analysis, internal or external

investigation, or audit thereof.


The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into their



relevant to the clai ms or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence. The JDSU Defend ants also object to this Request because

it is vague and ambiguous, especially with respect to the terms "potential or actual write-of of

accounts or adjustments," "potential or actual charge taken," "potential impairment," "potential or

actual establishment of reserves," "potential restatement," and "potential accounting errors," and

fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity . Read literally, Lead

Plaintiffs Request seeks "all" documents concerning every actual or contemplated charge on

every JDSU financial statement

sf-1884127 13

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections ,

2

4

S

6

7

8.

9

l0

It

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce business-unit and corporate-level

documents regarding actual or contemplated (1) write-off or adjusunents to JDSU's financial

statements with respect to the write-town or write-off of inventory or goodwill ; (2) charges taken

against JDSU's assets or financial statements with respect . to the write-down or write-off of

inventory or goodwill ; (3) impairment of JDSU's assets or goodwill ; (4) establishment of reserves

for obsolete inventory or accounts receivable ; (5) restatement of JDSi1 financial statements or

results with respect to the write-down or write-off of inventory or goodwill ; or (6) accounting

errors or accounting irregularities affecting JDSU financial statements, including documents

discussing any analysis, internal or external investigation, or audit thereof .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10 :

All drafts of any (sic] the following SEC filings : (a) Form 10-K Annual Reports sent to

Shareholders or filed with the SEC for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001;

(b) Form I0-Q Quarterly Reports or Form 14-Q/A Amended Quarterly Reports filed with the

SEC for the fiscal quarters ended September 30,1999 through June 30.2001 ; (c) Form. 8-K

Current Reports dated September 1, 2000 and March 6, 2001 and filed with SEC ; or (d) initial or

amended Registration Statements or Proxy-Prospectuses filed in connection with the mergers

with or acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK, or SDL.

RESPONSE TO M QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO .10:

The ]DSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into thei r

I response to this Request. Given that this Request is more likely than others to cal l for production

of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege , the JDSU Defendants also reiterate their

abjection to producing documents covered by any applicable privilege or immunity .



General Objection 14, the JUSU Defendants agree to produce drafts of the SEC filings desc ribed

in Request No . 10 .

sf-1894127 14

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.11:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

lJ

14

15

16

17

1 .8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

All drafts of press releases or public announcements concerning: (a) JDS financial . results ,

results of operations, or earnings guidance; (b) demand for Products; (c) JDS sates trends, sales

figures, or returns of products; (d) levels of inventory, destruction of inventory, excess inventory,

or obsolescence of inventory; (e) goodwill ; (f) changes in personnel, layoffs, downsizing, or

workforce reductions including but not limited to reductions in work shifts and overtime) ;

(g) closings ofplants, facilities or offices ; or (h) mergers or acquisitions involving JDS .

RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION N4.11:


response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request= which seeks "all"

of the documents it describes, because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks

information that is neit relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Given that this Request is

more likely than others to call for production of documents protected by the attorney-client

privilege, the JDSU Defendants also reiterate their objection to producing documents covered by

any applicable privilege or immunity.



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce drafts of press releases discussing

the subjects described in Request No. 11 .


All documents forming the basis for any statements made in such press release or publi c

announcement referenced in Request No. 11 above .



response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it i s


relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead t o

3f-1884127 15

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

23

the discovery of admissible evide . The JOSU Defendants also object to this Request because

it is duplicative of other Requests . The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is

vague and ambiguous, especially with respect to the tenn "forming the basis," and fails to

describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity. . Read literally, Lead Plain Ws

Request seeks "ail" documents tha t provide any foundation, no matter how remote, to JDSU's

public announcements,



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants will produce documents that discuss actual and

forecasted revenue at the business unit and company-wide levels; quarterly sales volume and

actual and forecasted sales and estimates of demand for JDSU's products, at the product line,

business unit, and company-wide levels; and gross and net inventory at the business unit and

company-wide levels. Those. documents will include, but not be limited to, the following

documents : materials from quarterly meetings with major customers ; Audit Committee report s

and packages provided to the Audit Committee; Annual Plan reports prepared for JDSU's Board

of Directors; Financial and Operations Committee Review reports ; flash reports forecasting

JDSU's revenue or sales ; internal reports discussing plans to expand or contract JDSU's

manufacturing capacity ; Standard & Poor's Corporate Value Consulting reports regarding the

estimation of fair market value of certain asset groupings of ]DSU; and documents addressing or

commenting on tie reports.

The JDSU Defendants also will produce documents that discuss : JDSU'.s write-down of

excess inventory for the quarter ended June 30, 2001, announced on July 26, 2001 ; JDSU's

revisions to earnings per share for the fiscal. year ended June 30, 2001, announced on July 26,

2001 ; JDSU's write-down of goodwill regarding the acquisition ofE-TEK, announced on July 26,

2041 ; JDSU's write-down of goodwill, . announced on July 26, 2041 ; and the initiation ofJDS[Ts

Global Realignment Program.

The JDSU Defendants also will produce business-unit and .eorporate: level documents

regarding actual or contemplated (1) write-off or adjustments to JDSU's financial statements with

sf-1884127 16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

i5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

respec t to the write-down or write-off of inventory or goodwill ; .(2) charges taken against JDSU's

assets or financial statements with respect to the awn or write-off of inventory or

goodwill; (3) impairment of JDSU's amts or goodwill; (4) establishment of reserves for obsolete

inventory or accounts receivable; (5) restatement of JDSU financial statements or results with

respect to the write -down or write-off of inventory or goodwill; or (6) accounting errors or

accounting irregularities affecting JDSU financial statements, including documents discussing

any analysis , internal or external investigation, or audit thereof.

The JDSU Defendants also will produce documents discussing (1) termination, layoff, or

workforce reduction of more than 25 permanent or temporary employees; (2) any corporate-level

decision to reduce or eliminate work shifts, overtime work, or hiring; or (3) any corporate-level

decision to close a JDSU plant or facility.

The JDSU Defendants also will produce documents discussing the special shareholder' s

meetings held in connection with the mergers with OCLL E-TEK, and SDL on or about February

4,200% June 28, 2000, and February 12, 2001 , respectively

The JDSIJ Defendants also will produce documents discussing ]DSU's decision to merge

with OCLI, E-TEK, and SILL ; . communications with investment bankers , investment advisors, or

lending institutions that discuss the merger with OCLl, E-TEK, or SDL; and documents

discussing the opinion , analysis, or advice of an investment bank, brokerage firm, or securi ties

firm regarding JDSU's merger with OCLI, E-TEK, or SDL.


A ll communications with reporters , news organizations, or the financial press concerning

JDS or .1DS securities, and documents concerning meetings with such persons at which JDS o r

JDS securities were discussed .

RESPONSE TO RE Q UESTT FOR PRODUC. ION NO. 13.:


response to this Request.



sf-18$4127 17

2

4

5

6

7

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce communications with Teporters,

news organ tions, or the financial press that discuss JDSU's accounting practices, forecasting of

revenues or sales, financial •stat nts, or financial reporting.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. .14:

All communications with securities analysts concerning 3D8 or JDS securities, and

documents concerning meetings with securities analysts at which JDS or ADS securities was

discussed.

RESPONSE TO RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

1s1 .4

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





General abjection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce communications with securi ties

analysts discussing JDSU, and documents discussing meetings with securities analysts at which

JDSU was discussed.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCH ON NO. i5:

All documents concerning anypayment made by IDS to securities analysts ( including but

not limited to Piper Jaffiray ar analysts working at Piper Jaifray) who covered IDS s ecurities .

RESPONSE TO REQ UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS:






it is duplicative of other Requests.

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference'the General Objections ,


sf-18$4127 18

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents regarding payment t o

2 Piper Iafftay .or its analysts.


4

5

6

7

All documents concerning conference calls hosted by JDS on or about April 25, 2000,

July 26, 2000, October 26, 2000, January 2 5 , 2001, and February 13, 2001 related to its quarterly

or annual earnings or financial results; including but not limited to transcripts of such conferenc e

calls and materials distributed in connection with such conference calls.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1s

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably dil igent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing JDSU's

April 25, 2000, July 26, 2000 , October 26, 2000 , January 25, 2001, and February 13, 2001

conference calls, transcripts of those calls, and materials distributed during those calls .

IREOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

All documents concerning draft or final analyst reports, research reports, or research note s

on JDS or JDS securities , including but .not limited to drafts of such reports or notes and

documents setting forth comments by ]DS personnel on such reports or notes .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11;


response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is vague

and ambiguous, especially with respect to the terms "research reports" and "research notes," and

fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity.

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections,


General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents provided to ]DSU by

any investment bank or financial institution discussing draft . or final analyst reports, analyst

sf-I884127 19

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

It

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

research reports., or analyst research notes on JDSU or JDSU securities, including drafts of such

analyst reports or analyst notes and documents setting forth comments by JDS .U personnel on

such analyst reports or analyst note.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS :

All documents concerning :JDS's potential or actual meter with, or acquisition of OCLI,

including but not limited to documents concern ing due diligence conducted in enaction with

this transaction , and documents concerning meetings at which these subjects were discussed .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS :

The .1DSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into their




the discovery of admissible evidence . Read literally, Lead Plaintiff's Request seeks "all"

documents that rely in any manner to JDSU's merger with QCLI.



General Objection 14, the 3DSU Def is agree to produce documents discussing JDSU's

decision to merge with QCLU and 3DSU's due diligence in connection with that merger .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.19:.

All documents concerning DDS's potential or actual merger with or acquisition of E-TEK ,

including but not limited to documents concerning due diligence conducted in connection wit h

this transaction, and documents concerning meetings at which these subjects were discussed .

RESPONSE TO HK QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:


response to this Request . The ,1DSU Defeats further object to this Request because it i s


relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead t o

sf-1s$4127 20

the discovery of admissible evidence. Read literally, Lead Plaintiffs Request seeks "ai "

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

15

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documents that relate in any manner to JDSU' s merger with E-TEK.


and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search . as described in


decision to merge. with E-TEK and JDSU's due diligence in connection with that merger .

REQUEST Fa1R PRDDUGTIOI NO. 20:

All documents concerning JDS's potential or actual merger with or acquisition of SDL ,

including but not limited to documents concerning due diligence conducted in connection with

this transaction, and documents concerning meetings at which these subjects were discussed .

RESPONSE TO REDDEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:


response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request , which seeks "all"



this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Read

literally, Lead Plaintiffs Request seeks "all" documents that relate in any manner to JDSU's

merger with SDL.


and to the. extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing ,IDSU's

decision to merge with SDL and JDSU's due diligence in connection with that merger.

RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.21 :

All documents concerning the special shareholder's meetings held . in connection with th e

mergers with or acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK, and SDL on or about February 4, 2000. June 2$ ,

20]0, and February 12, 200 1, respectively, including but not limited to documents concerning an y

adjournment or rescheduling of such special mmeeting&

sf-1884127 21

RESPONSE TO RE WE R FOR PRODUCTION NU: .21:

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


response to this Request .



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants . agree to produce documents discussing the special

shareholder's meetings held in connection with the mergers with .OCLI, E-TEK, and SDL on or

about February 4, 2000, June 28, 2000, and February 12, 2001, respectively, including documents

discussing adjournment or rescheduling of the special meetings .


All communicat ions with investment bankers, investment advisors or lending institutions

concerning 5DS's projected , forecasted or actual results, 3OS securi ties , or the mergers with or

acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEI( or SDL, and documents conce rn ing meetings with investment

bankers, investment advisors or lending institutions at which these subjects were discussed .





relevant to the claims . or defenses of any party in : this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible, evidence.

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections, .


General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents constituting or

discussing communications regarding JDSU's projected , forecasted, or actual results, JDSU

securities, or the mergers with OCLI, E-TEK, or$DL, where such communications are with

investment bankers, with investment advisors, or, to the extent made in the course of seeking an

extension of credit to JDSU, with lending institutions .

sf-1884127 22

RE . v FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23 :

2 All documents reflecting the opinion, analysis or advice of any investment bank,

brokerage firm or securities firm concerning JDS's projected, forecasted or actual results, JD S

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

securities, or the mergers with or acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK or SDL .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 23 :




relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculate to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence .



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defend" agree to produce documents cons tituting or

discussing the opinion , analysis, or advice of an investment bank, brokerage firm, or securities

firm rwding JDSU's projected, forecasted, or actual results , JDSU securities, or the mergers

with OCLI, E-TEK, or SDL.


All documents concerning due diligence performed by any investment bank, brokerage

firm or securities firm in connection with the mergers with or acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK or

SDL, or any offering or proposed offing of JDS securities to the public .

RESPONSE TO P QUEST FOR PRODUCTI NO.24:





General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing due diligence

performed by an investment bank, brokerage firm, or securities firm in connection with the

sf-188.4127 23

I

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

mergers with OCLI, E-TEK, or SDL, or an actual or contemplated offering of JDSU securities to

the public .

FOR PRODUCTION NO.2S:M&U

All documents concerning services tendered by any lending institution to JDS, including

but not limited to all communications with lending institutions and documents provided to or

received from lending institutions.

RESPONSE 'T'D REQUEST [ RPRUSQUL'P ON NO.25:

The 3DSU Defendants incorporate by reference each feral Objection into their

response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants Ether object to this Request because it is

overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks an enormous volume of infomnation that is neither

relevant to the claim or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence . Read literally, Lead Plaintiffs Request seeks "all"

communications with lending institutions .

RE I TEST FUR PRODUCTION NO .26:

All communications with Furukawa concerning : (a) projected, forecasted or actual JD S

financial results, revenues, sales, orders, demand, or inventory; (b) the mergers with o r

acquisitions of OCL1; E-TEK or SDL; (c) accounting issues; or (d) changes in personnel.

RESPONSE To _ _ UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.26;


response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request as it is neither


the discovery of admissible evidence, given that Furukawa has been dismissed from this action

with prejudice.


All documents concerning E&Y's contemplated, in-progress, or completed audits o r

reviews ofJDS's annual or quarterly financial statements, and documents concerning meetings at

which any of these subjects were discussed .

sf-1884127

1

2

3

4

5

6 17

S

9

10

11

12

13

1 4

i5

16

17

Is

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RESPONSE TO REGUESFOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

The JDSU De fendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into the ir


Subject to the above. objections and incorporating by reference the General Objections ,

l to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing

contemplated, in-Progress, or completed audits or reviews of 3DSU 's annual or quarterly financial

statements, and documents regarding meetings at which these subjects were discussed .

VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.28:

All communications with E&Y concerning 11)5 f nancial statements or JDS accounting

policies or practices ,






General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce communications with E&Y

regarding JDSU financial statements or JDSU accounting policies or practices .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTI N NO .29:

All documents concerning any disagreement by E&Y with any conclusion, statemment,

position, opinion or recommendation of JDS, or vice versa .


The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each C neral Objection into their

response' to this Request .



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing an y

st]8S4127 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

a

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1s

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

disagreement with E&Y regarding :JDSU's financial ,tme ts, accounting prac tices, or

accounting policies.

QUEST FOR P_ UDUCTYON NO. 30 :

All documents analyzing, critiquing or otherwise concerning JDS's internal financial

controls, including but not limited to management letters, management review documents, and

management reports .

RESPONSE TO RE-OEM FOR MDUCTIQN NO. 30 :

The IDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into their




the discovery of admissible evidence.



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents analyzing , critiquing, or

discussing JDSU's internal financial controls.

U Efl FOR PR DUCTION NO. 31:

All communications with the SEC concerning JDS's financial statements, adequacy of

public disclosure, accounting policies or practices, or compliance with the Securities Act of 1933,

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any SEC rule or regulation promulgated thereunder.

RESPONSE TO VEST FOR PRODU+L"` .`ION NO. 31:

The 3DSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into thei r




General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce communications with the SEC that

discuss JDSU's financial statements, the adequacy of JDSU's public disclosure, JDSU`s

sf 1884127 26

accounting policies or practices, or JDSU's compliance with the Securities Act of 1933, th e

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

lI

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or other SEC rule or regulation .


All documents concerning any investigation, inquiry, audit, examination, inspection, or

enforcement proceeding by the SEC, U.S. Department of Justice, the National Association of

Securities Dealers, the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, or any other state or federal

government agency or self regulatory agency, including but not limited to all communications

with such agencies and all, documents provided to or received from such agencies.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32%



overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims or

defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence . Read literally, Lead Plaintiff's Request seeks "ally' documents relating to

every inquiry by a governmental agency, which would include, for example, inquiries related to

employee safety, environmental issues, compliance with employment laws, and other topics that

have nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation.

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the general Objections,


General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing any

governmental or regulatory investigation, inquiry, audit, examination, inspection, or enforcement

prof ing regarding JDSU's accounting practices or financial reporting .

REQUEST FOR PRODUC'T'ION NO 33 :

All documents concerning : (a) the recognition of revenues on sales of Products made o n

consignment; (b) any cancellation, reduction , delay, or modification of any order or agreement to

purchase $1 million or more worth of Products (either singly or in the aggregate), (c) any

shipment of Products made to [sic] or filling of a cancelled order or agreement to purchase

Products; (d) the shipment of Products in the absence of an order or agreement -to purchase

sf-1.884127 27

2

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

Products ; (e) delays in shipping Products or filling orders within three weeks from the end of one

fiscal quarter to the next fiscal qua rter, or (t) any shipment of Products within three weeks of the

end of one fiscal quarter tho were returned to JDS during the next fiscal quarter .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQNNO. 33:


response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is vague

and ambiguous, especially with, respect to the terms "on consignment," "shipment of Products

made to or filling of a cauctlled order or agreement to purchase,' "shipment of Products in the

absence of an order or agreement to purchase ," and "delays in shipping," and fails to describe the

documents sought with reasonable particularity. The JDSU Defendants further object to this

Request because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks an enormous volume of

information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Read literally, Lead

Plaintiffs Request seeks "all" documents regarding any changed orders. The JDSU Defendants

also object to this Request to the extent that it requires the creation of a summary or other new

document. The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request to the extent that it would require

the disclosure of the subjective legal judgment of the JDSU Defendants ' attorneys and would

require a conclusion or opinion of counsel in viol ion of the attorney work . product doctrine.

Specifically, to determine whether documents concern products that were shipped on a delayed or

cancelled order, on consignment, or in the absence of a p urchase order, the JDSU Defendants'

counsel would have to math each potentially relevant document to a purchase order , a shipping

invoice, or other paperwork , . and then determine whether the set of documents relates to an order

described in the request.



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents that discuss whethe r

products were: sold on consignment, shipped after the cancellation of an order ; shipped without a

customer order to purchase the products ; delayed in shipping within three weeks from the end of

sf-I 84127 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

li

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

one fiscal quarter to the next fiscal quarter; or shipped within three wedm of the end of one fisca l

quarter and returned to iDSU during the next fiscal quarter .

REOUFST FOR PRODUMON NO. 34:

All documents concerning Hatboro Delivery Service, including but not limited to

shipments of Products picked up by Hatboro Delivery Service from XDS's Horsham,

Pennsylvania facility.

RESPONSE TO EEOUEST FORRODUC ION NO. 34:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each Greneral Objection into thei r

response to this . Request. The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request because it is






General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing Hatboro

Delivery Service.


All documents concerning: (a), shipments of Products worth $ 1 million or more to

customers of JDS, including but not limited to Lucent and Nortel, where the customer refused to

tale delivery of the shipment ; or (b) shipments of Products to customers earlier than the delivery

date requested by the customer.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION E Q. 35:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each feral Objection into thei r

response to this Request. The 3DS!U Defendants further object to this Request because it is

overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks an .enormous volume of information that is neither


the discovery of admissible evidence. The JDSU Defendants also object to this . Request to the

extent that it requires the creation of a summary or other new document. The JDSU Defendants

st-1884127 29

2

3

4

5

6

7

also object to this Request to the extent that it would require the disclosure of the subjective legal

judgment . of the JDSU Defendants' attorneys and would require a conclusion or opinion of

counsel in violation of the attorney work product doctrine . Specifically, to determine whether

documents concern shipments to customers that refused to take delivery, or shipments to

customers earlier than requested, the JDSU Defendants' counsel would have to match each

potentially relevant document to a purchase order, a shipping invoice, or other paperwork, and

then determine whether the set of documents relates to a shipment described in the request .


9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2.8

and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent . search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents that discuss on their

face whether : (1) any customer of JDSU refused to take delivery of a shipment valued a t

$1 million or more, or (2) JDSU shipped products valued at . $1 million or more to a customer

earlier than the delivery date requested by the customer.


All documents concerning: (a) any termination , layoff or workforce reduction of

permanent or temporary employees at any IDS facility ; (b) any reduction or elimination of work

shifts or reduction or elimination of overtime work at any ]DS facility; (c) any freeze on hiring a t

any JDS facility; or (d) any partial or total closing of any JDS plant or facility .

RESPONSE T .REQUEST . .aR PRODUCTION NO.36:


response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants object to this Request to the extent the Request

seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of former JDSU employees . The JDSU

Defendants further object to this Request, which seeks "all" of the documents it describes,

because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks an enormous volume of information

that is neither relevant to the claims or'defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Read literally, Lead Plaintiffs

Request seeks. "all" documents relating to the termination of every former .1DSU employee ,

regardless of the circa.

s1.1U4127 31


2

3

4

5

6

8 .

9

to

tl

12

13

14

15

16

17

1$

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and.to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing (1)

termination , layoff, orworkforce reduction of more than 25 permanent or temporary employees ; .

(2) any corporate-level decision to reduce or eliminate work shifts, overtime work, or hiring ; or

(3) any corporate-level decision to close a JDSU plant or facility, except that individual

separation agreements will not be produced merely because they mention any of these three

categories .

IRE QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.31:

Organizational charts describing JDS, its alluliates, divisions, departments, units or other

corporate subdivisions, and the relationships among them, during the Relevant Period.

RESPONSE To REQMST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:





General abjection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to prod organizational charts for the

corporate, business unit, and facility levels .

RE [TEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 :

All documents found in the personnel file of each individual Defendant and Pitre ,

including but not limited to performance reports , reviews, or evaluations.

RESPONSE RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION-NO. 38:

The JDSU its incorporate by reference each General Objection into thei r


seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of Mr . Pitre and the Individual Defendants . The

JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents

that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead t o


sf-Z 884127 3

2

3

4

5

6

7

s

9

10

11

1 .2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REf ULST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 :

All documents concerning : (a) Kalkhoven's retirement as coo-chairman and chief

executive officer of JDS on or about May 18 .2000; (b) Kalkhoven's change in status from full-

time employee or consultant to part-time employee or consWunt on or about duly 31, 20W; (c)

Abbe's retirement as president and chief operating officer on or about June 12,200 1 ; or (d)

Kalkhoven's departure from JDS on or about July 31 , 2001.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCT YON NO. 39:



seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of Mr . Kalkhoven and Mr. Abbe. The JDSU

Defendants also object to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents that are

neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence .



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing Mr.

Ka(khoven's retirement on or about May 18, 2000 ; Mr. Kalkhoven's change in status on or about

July 31, 2000; Mr. Abbe's retirement on or about June 12, 2001 ; or Mr. Kalkhoven's departure on

or about July 31., 2001 .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.

All documents concerning the article in the May 31, 2001 issue of Light Reading

concerning Kalkhoven, including but not limited to drafts of the article, communications with th e

author of the article or personnel at Light Reading, and documents concerning meetings at which

the Light Reading article was discussed .

RESPONSE TO ICIEST FOR PRODUCTION MAO:

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each. General Objection into their


5f 1884127 32


2

3

4

5

6

7

and to the extent such documents ,can. be located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing the article in

the May 31, 2001 issue of Light Reading regarding Mr. Kalkhavven, including drafts of the article, .

communications with the author of the article or personnel at Light Reading, and documents

discussing meetings regarding the Light Reading article.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.41 :

The personnel files, all diaries, appointment calendars, and telephone logs maintained by

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or on behalf of or concerning Mark Colyar, Eitan Gertel, Peter Hallemeier, Russ Johnson,

Stephen Krasulick (or Krauslick}, Anthony (or Tony) Musto, David Renner, and Paul . Suchoski

(or Paul Suc-howski) .

RESPONSE TO REDDEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.41 :


response to this Request The JDSU Defendants object to this Request to the extent the Request

seeks docwnents protected by the privacy rights of the individuals named in Request 41 . The


that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the Request refers to individuals who had left

JDSU prior to the filing of the present suit, and whose files may no longer exist .

VEST FOR PRODUCTION NM 42

.All written agreements (including but not limited to employment and compensatio n

agreements) between JDS and any Individual Defendant, and any drafts thereof or amendments

thereto .



response to this Request. The JDSU Defendants object to this Request, to the extent the west

seeks documents protectedby the privacy rights of the Individual Defendants . The JDSU


f t $&6123 33

neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to th e

2 discovery of admissible evidence .

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reface the General objections ,

4

5

6

7


General objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce written agreements between JDSU

and any Individual Defendant .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43-.

All documents concerning any plan or agreement which provides for compensation o f

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDS officers, directors, or executives -through the payment of cash or ]DS securities, and all

documents which describe or explain the structure or operation of such plan.

RESP NSE TO REQUEST R PRODIJCFION ND. 43:


response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants object to this Request to the extent the Request

seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of the individuals referenced in Request 43 . The



the discovery of admissible evidence. The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request be se

it is vague and ambiguous, especially with respect to the terms "plan or agreement" and

"executives," and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity . Read

literally, Lead Plaintiff's Request seeks "ail" documents reflecting every paycheck ever issued to

a JDSU "executive:"


and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as desc ribed in


compensation of the Individual Defendarnts_

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.

All documents concerning any program, plan or policy for bonus compensation or th e

granting of loans or extcnsioa of credit by IDS to diarectors, officers or executives .

sfi-18$4127 34


2i

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

]1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


response to this Request. The JDSU its object to this Request to the extent the Request


1DSU Defendants also object to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents

that are neither relevant to the claims or, defenses of any party nor .reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence. The JDSU Defendants also object to this Request because

it is vague and ambiguous, especially with respect to the term "executives," and fails to describ e

the documents sought with reasonable particularity-



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing bonuses,

loans, and extensions of credit to the Individual Defendants.

REQUOT FOR PRODUCTION NO.45:

All documents concerning the sale, purchase or transfer of ]DS securities by any

Individual Defendant or any other IDS director, officer, or executive, including but not limited to:

(a) documents concerning rules, guidelines or procedures governing the sale of JDS securities ;

(b) communications with stockbrokers, investment advisors or financial planners concerning the

sale, purchase or transfer of JDS securities; (c) communications between any JDS perso nnel on

that subject; (d) .documnents concern ing the proceeds or use of proceeds from any sale of ]DS

securities; and (e) Form 4s filed with the SEC .

RESPONSE To REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:




]DSU Defendants also object-to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents



sf 1884127 35

Subject to the above objections and incorporating by reference the Cameral Objections ,

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


General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce (1) JDSU's written policies and

practices governm'g the sale of JDSU securities by its officers, directors, and employees ;

(2) communications between or among JDSU, the Individual Defendants, and the Individual

Defendants' stockbrokers, investment advisors, or financial planners discussing the sale,

purchase, or transfer of 3DSU securities ; and (3) Form 4s filed with the SEC .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 46:

All diaries, appointment calendars , and telephone lags maintained by or on behalf of any

Individual Defendant, Zita M . Cobb, Bruce D_ Day, Harry Deffebach, Robert E . Enos, Joseph 1p,

Fred Leonberger, John A . Macnaughton, Danny E . Pettit, Michael C. Phillips, Casimi r

Skrxy lc, Pitre, .and all recipients of the Pitre E-mail.




seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of the individuals named in Request 46_ Th e


that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead t o

the: discovery of admissible evidence .


and to the extent such documents can be located after a reasonably di ligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce such work diaries, appointment

calendars , and telephone logs maintained by or on behalf of the Individual Defendants .


Documents, including but not limited to personal financial statements, sufficient to sho w

I the current net worth of each Individual Defendant.

sf-1884127 36

RESPONSE To REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.47:

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The JDSU Defendants incorporate by reference each feral Objection i nto their

response to this Request . The 3DSU Defendants object to this Request to the extent the Request

seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of the Individual Defendants . The JDSU


neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence .


All documents concerning any complaint filed internally or publicly expressed by any

]DS employee, officer, director or executive, including but not limited to documents concerning

"whistleblowers" or "whistteblowW" activities, calls to any IDS complaint, ethics, or

whistleblower hotline, or communications with any company ombudsman .

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUM N NO.48:



and ambiguous, especially with resp ect to the term. "publicly expressed," and fails to describe the

documents sought with reasonable particularity . The JDSU Defendants further object to this

Request because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither

relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor reasonably emulated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence . Read literally, Lead Plaintiff.'s Request seeks "all"

documents regarding any complaint ever made by any JDSU employee, officer, director, or

executive to anyone regarding any subject.


and to the extent such documents can be.located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce documents discussing any

complaints filed internally, with a court; or with -an administrative agency, regarding .1OSU's

accounting practices , forecasting of revenues or sales, financial statements, or fimmcial reporting.

sf i 884127 Y


2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Documents sufficient to show the Last known business address, business telephone

number, home address , home telephone number, and/or e-mail address of any person formerly

employed in the finance or accounting dePalftent of JDS or any JDS subsidiary, and documents

concerning exit interviews with or exit memoranda for any such former JDS employee .



response to this Request . The JDSU Defendants further object to this Request, which seeks "'"""



this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . The JDSU

Defendants further object to this Request to the extent the Request seeks documents protected by

the privacy rights of individuals .

UEST R PRODUCTION NO 54 :

A document showing the last known address for (a) Joseph Ip, and (b) Thomas Pitre.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUgM0



seeks documents protected by the privacy rights of Mr . Ip and Mr. Pine- The JDSU Defendants

also object to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated . to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. SI:

With respect to Bruce Day, Robert Enos, : and Casimir Skrzypczak: (a) any and all of their

personnel files, diaries, appointment calendars, and/or telephone logs maintained ; (b) all

documents concerning or memorializing their purchase or sale of JDS stock or exercise of JDS

stock options during the Relevant Time Period ; (c) all documents concerning their decision to

purchase or sell ]DS stock or exercise IDS stock options during the Relevant Time Period .

sf-1884127 38

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

RESPONSE TO U& UEST FOR PRODUCTION NU. 51:



seeks documents protected bythe privacy rights of Mt . Day, Mr. .Enos, and W. Sl rpczak. The

JDSU Defendants also object, to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents

that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to led to



All documents concerning any JDS policy or practice regarding the retention or

destruction of documents .


The 7DSU Defendants incorporate by reference each General Objection into their

response to this Request. The ]DSO Defendants further object to this Request because it is vagu e

and ambiguous, and fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity . The

JDSU Defendants understand Lead Plaintiff to be seeking JDSU's written policies and practices .



General Objection 14, the JDSU Defendants agree to produce JDSU's policies regarding th e

retention or destruction of documents.

REOIJEST FOR PRODUCTION !LO. 53:

All insurance policies, including but not .limited to D&O and finite insurance policies, that

3DS holds with any insurance carrier.

RESPONSE TU 1 QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:



and ambiguous, especially with respect to the term "finite insurance policies," and fails to

describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity. The JDSU Defendants further

object to this Request because it is overbroad in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant

sf-1884127 39

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

S

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Is

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to the claims or defenses of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Read literally, Lead Plaintif#'s Request seeks "all" insurance policies held

by JDSU, including, for instance, environmental and employment policies, which have no

relevance to the present matter.


and to the extent such . documents can be located after a reasonably diligent search as described in

General Objection 14, the JDSIJ Defendants agree to produce insurance policies that might

provide coverage with regard to the present action.

Dated : April 4, 2005

sf-18&4127

MELVIN R GOLDMANJORDAN ETHTERRI GARLANDALISON M. TUCHERPHILIP T. BESIROFRAYMOND M. HASUMORRISON & FOERSTER LU'

By: A~~ -,;ay.Z96e,--,

Alisont M. Tucher

Attomeys for Defendants.JDS Uniphase Corporation, JozefStraus, Anthony Muller, and CharlesAbbe

40

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

M O R R I S O N FOERSTER L L P

N E W Y O R E , S A N F R A N C I S C O , LOS AWGELES, P A L 0 ALTO,

S A N DIECO. W A 4 8 I W G T O N . D . C .

T E L E P H O N E : , ~ I ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~ O ~ ~ D E N V E R , ~ O ~ T ~ ~ R U ' J ~ P . ~ l ~ ~ A , O R A N G E C O U N T Y , S A C P A M E N T O O

WWW-MOPO.COEd TOKYO, L O N D O N , B E I I I N C , S H A N G H A I , = O N 6 K O N G , S I N G A P O R E . BRUSSELS

February 10,2006 Writer's Direct Contact 415.268.6091 [email protected]

By Overnight Delivev

Anthony Harwood, Esq. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff L U I00 Park Avenue New York, New York 1001 7

Re: In re JDS Uniphme Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-1 486 CW @DL)

Dear Tony:

I write hrrther to my January 30,2006 letter to Jon Adams regarding Plaintiffs' request for text files of the electronic documents that JDSU has previously produced to Plaintiffs. As we discussed during our February 2,2006 meet-and-confrr session, JDSU has agreed to provide Plaintiffs with text files that contain the same fields that Applied Discovery provides to Morrison & Foerster for our use with Concordance. Accordingly, enclosed find a hard drive that contains the text files of the electronic documents that JDSU has produced to Plaintiffs through January 3 1,2006. Please copy the data f?om the hard drive and then return it to me.

In addition, we have hard-copy documents, labeled JDSU 1659499 - JDSU 1667392, available for production to Plaintiffs fkom Dr. Straus's files. As soon as you inform us of your preferred local vendor, we will send these documents to it for copying, in addition to the approximately 7,900 pages of documents that we offered to produce to Plaintiffs on January 31.

Very truly yours,

Philip T. Besirof

Enclosure

Exhibit 6


I 425 M A R K E T STREET M O R R I S O N B F O E R S T E R LIP

MORRISON FOERSTER SAN FRANCISCO N E W Y O R R , S A N F R A N C I S C O ,

LOS A N G E L E S , PAL0 ALTO, C A L I F o a N I A 94105-2482

S A N D I E G O , W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .

T E L E P H O N E : ~ I ~ . Z ~ ~ . ~ O O O D E N V E R , N O R T H E R N V I R G I N I A , O R A N G E C O U N T Y , S A C R A M E N T O ,

August 1,2005

TOKYO. L O N D O N . B E I J I N G .

S H A N G H A I , R O N 6 KONC;.

S I N G A P O R E , B R U S S E L S

Writer's Direct Contact 41 51268-6095

By Fax (2 12-8 18-0477) & U.S. Mail

Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017

Re: In re JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-1486 CW (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Barbara:

I write M e r to my July 5 letter, as well as our telephone call of Friday, regarding JDSU's production of transactional data contained on the Oracle database.

We are currently in the process of creating a database environment in which we will restore data fiom the Oracle database. As we discussed on Friday, the Oracle data that we are restoring now reside on back-up tapes. Once the database environment and the tapes are restored, we will verify the data (including verification that there is no corruption), and review the contents to ensure that no redaction is necessary. After that process has been completed, we will begin a rolling production to Lead Plaintiff. Assuming that there is no conuption of these tapes (and as of the present, we have no reason to believe there is any corruption), we estimate that we will be able to produce Oracle data within four to six weeks from today.

In the meantime, it would be productive to decide on a method by which JDSU will provide the Oracle data to Lead Plaintiff. There are a variety of possible methods, depending on Lead Plaintiffs preferences and capabilities. Specifically, there are four methods that we have identified for providing the Oracle transactional data. You will likely want to consult with your IT vendor in making a selection. The four methods are as follows:

After we have recreated a database environment and restored the Oracle tapes, we will be able to run specific queries for Lead Plaintiff. We would then provide the results of Lead Plaintiffs queries to you;


M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R I Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Anthony J. Harwood, Esq. Jon Adams, Esq. August 1,2005 Page Two

JDSU can provide raw database files to Lead Plaintiff on either a hard drive or on back-up tapes. If Lead Plaintiff selects to receive the Oracle data on a hard drive, you should provide the hard drive on which you want the data placed. We will then return the same drive to you once the data has been placed on the drive;

JDSU can provide Lead Plaintiff with the data export files (.drnp) from Oracle, which is a preferred method if Lead Plaintiff has Oracle software; or

JDSU can place the data onto text files, allowing Lead Plaintiff to more easily create its own environment.

Each of these methods involves different costs and benefits, including monetary costs and lead time for production. Accordingly, we suggest that you meet and confer with us (after discussing these issues with your IT consultant) to determine your preferred method. Please let me know once you are ready to discuss these production issues.

Finally, as we agreed last Friday, we will address the remaining discovery issues by letter on Wednes&y .

Very truly yours,

Terri Garland


Exhibit 7


. L l / U I / U b 1 4 : Z Y FAA ill2 L116 0 4 7 7 LABATON SUCHAKOW LLP

Labaton Sucharow

November 7,2006

FA-

Thothy Blakely, Esq. Morrison & Foerster 425 Maxket Street San Francisco, California 941 05-2482

Re: JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation

Dear Timothy:

I am writing about Defendants' ERP system in n a t h format. Please pxovide t h i s data organized by geographic location of the ERP Application, as specified in '7DSU's Legacy ERP Systems" ma&. Please provide the data in the following categories:

1) Ottawa Nisibility) ERP Data

a) Please include the entire Oracle database (that stores the Visibility ERP Applications data) in a format easily restored into an Oracle Database. Our preference and, we believe, the easiest fonn, would be to provide the data in an Oracle Database backup.

b) Please include any and all documentation on the database schema and layout, eitha supplied with the Visibility application, or specific to the Ottawa Visibility iinp1e~zentation.

a) Please include the entire Oracle dabbase, in a fonnat easily restored into an Oracle Database. Our preference and, we believe, the easiest form, would be to provide the data in an Oracle Database backup.

b) Please include any and all documentation on the database schema and layout, either supplied with the Oracle ERP application, or specific to the JDS implementation,

3) San Tose ETEIC (Etek Oracle) ERP Data

a) Please include the entire Oracle database, in a format easily restored into an Oracle Database. Our preference and, we believe, the easiest form, would be to provide the data in an Oracle Database baclmp,

b) Please include any and all documentation on the database schema and layout, either supplied with the Oracle ERP application, or specific to the JDS implementation.


LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Timothy Blakely, Esq. November 6,2006 Page 2

4) Santa Rosa (BAAN M ERP Data

a) Please include the entire database, in a format easily rcstoxcd to either an Oracle Database, or a Microsoft SQL Server database, If the BAAN IV E3R.I' Data is currently in an Oracle or SQL Server dabbase, we would prefer h e format to be an Oracle or SQL Server database backup. If it is in anothet database format, please contact us to negotiate a suitable format for production.

b) Please include any and all documentation oo the database schema and layout, either supplied with the BAAN IV application, or specific to the Smta Rosa implementation.

ose/SDL (ID Edwards) ERP Data

a) Please include the entire database, in DB2/400 Physical Database fiIe format.

b) Please incIude any and all documentation on the database schema and layout, either supplied with the JD Edwards application, or specific to the San Jose/SDL implementation.

6) Bamointe. San Tose. Bloomfield. Honham flSBMI ERP Data

a) Please include the entire database(s), in DB2/400 Physical database a e format

b) Please include any and all documentation on the database schema and layou< either supplied with the KBM application, or specific to the site implementation(s).

7) Ewin,~ (Manfact) ERP Data

a) Please include the entire database, extracted as well-formed, comma separated value files, one hle for each table, including all fields as colunns in the flee.

b) Please indude any and all documentation on the database schema and layout, either supplied with the Manfact application, or specific to the Ewing implementation.

Kindly deliver the databases on IDE Hard Disk Drives, clearly marked with the contents of each drive. If any problems arise based on formats, or extraction issues, please feel hee to contact us and have the appropriate system technoAogists available for consultation.

Sincerely Yours,

Labaton Suchamw


Exhibit 8


I 425 hURKET STWTYI' M(>RRISON (* FOERSTKR 1.1.~

M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R SAN FRANCISCO N R W Y O R K , SIN I'RANI:ISCI),

CA1Jl:ORNIA 94105-2482 1.OS ANGRl.ES, PAl.0 Al,T[l, SAN l>ll<GO, WASIIINCTON. l>.C.

TEXEPHONR: 415.268.7000 I)IINVI!R, NORTttBRN V IRGIN IA , ORANCI! C O I I N I Y , SACRAMRNTO,

FAcsIMII ,I? 415.268.7522 WAI.NIIT CHEEK. CfIN1'lIRY C t T Y

MWW.MOI:O.COM TOKYO. I.ONI>ON, RHIJING. SI IANGIIAI , It[)NG KONG, SINGAPORI!, DRLISSII1.S

November 7,2006 Writer's Direct Contact 41 5.268.6091 [email protected]

By Fax

Anthony J. Harwood, Esq. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017

Re: In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02- 1486 CW (EDL)

Dear Tony:

I write in response to your November 7 letter regarding Plaintiffs' request for the production of Confidential Witness statements in JDSU's possession. To the extent JDSU has any such statements, they are protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine until the moment that JDSU decides to file them, if at all, with the Court. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. VIA Technologies, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 450,452 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

Moreover, Plaintiffs cannot argue that they were ignorant as to the existence of those witnesses. In fact it was Plaintiffs who disclosed the Confidential Witnesses to JDSU in their Rule 26 initial disclosures. As the Court stated in Intel,

[Wlhen a fact witness is disclosed, all parties are on notice that tfie disclosing side contends the witness has relevant knowledge, All are thus on notice that the disclosing side may well have interviewed the witness and may have even obtained a statement. That would be normal practice. Disclosing that fact would only disclose what should be presumed by prudent counsel. All parties arepee to contact the fact witness and obtain their own statements.

Id. (emphasis added.)

As you are aware, many months ago JDSU requested notes of the statements made by Confidential Witnesses to Plaintiffs' counsel and investigators. Plaintiffs have refused to discIose those statements, maintaining that they are privileged. Do Plaintiffs now contend


M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R I Anthony J. Harwood, Esq. November 7,2006 Page Two

that JDSU is in fact entitled to the notes of those Confidential Witness statements? If so, please advise us so that JDSU may consider our position regarding any Confidential Witness statements in its possession.

Very truly yours,

/& L Philip T. Besirof

cc: Howard S. Caro, Esq. Daniel B. Harris, Esq.
