Free Exhibit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 135-6 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 big? 2 OH
Westlaw
Slip Copy Page 1
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1629633 (D.Conn.), 2005-2 Trade Cases P 74,884
(Cite as: Slip Copy)
, Robert N. Kaplan , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer ,
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1629633 (D.Conn.), 2005-2 New York, NY, David A. Slossberg , J. Daniel
Trade CasesP 74,884 Sagarin , Bradford Michael Buchta , Hurwitz
Briefs and Other Related Documents Sagarin & Slossberg , Milford, CT, Jason S. Hartley
, Ross Dixon & Bell , San Diego, CA, Richard
United States District Court,D. Connecticut. Adam Koffman , Andrea Lynn Hertzfeld , Cohen
In re PUBLICATION PAPER ANTITRUST Milstein Hausfield & Toll , Washington, DC, Aaron
LITIGATION F. Biber , Jeremy L. Johnson , Seymour J. Mansfield
N0.3:04MDl63l(SRU). , Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, P.A. , Charles N.
Nauen , Sunny H. Kim , W. Joseph Bruckner ,
July 5, 2005. Darla J. Boggs , Lockridge Grindall Nauen PLLP,
Daniel Gustafson , Renae D. Steiner , Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Samuel D. Heins , Vincent J. Esades ,
Alex C. Turan , Christopher L. Lebsock , Jon T. Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. , Minneapolis, MN,
King , Michael P. Lehmann , Thomas P. Dove , The Beth J. Kushner , Von Briesen & Roper SC,
Furth Firm , Bruce Wecker , George Frost , Hosie Milwaukee, WI, Dianne M. Nast , Erin C. Bru·ns ,
Frost Large & Mcarthur , Craig C. Corbitt , Zelle, Roda Nast PC , Lancaster, PA, Mary Jane Fait ,
Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP , Joseph Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Herz , Gary L.
M. Patane , Law Office of Joseph M. Patane , Specks , Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP , James B.
Mario N. Alioto , Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott Sloan , Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. , Arthur T. Susman
LLP , Susan G. Kupfer , Glancy & Binkow , San , William T. Gotfryd , Susman & Watkins , Robert
Francisco, CA, Andrew M. Schatz , Eric L. E. Davy , Robert E. Davy, Jr. & Associates ,
Palmquist , Jeffrey S. Nobel , Schatz & Nobel , Chicago, IL, John A. Kilo , Kilo, Flynn, Billingsley,
James W. Bergenn , Ross H. Garber , Shana-Tara Trame & Brown, P.C. , St. Louis, MO, Anthony D.
Regon , Shipman & Goodwin , Hartford, CT, Shapiro , Steven W. Berman , Hagens Berman, LLP
Jeffrey B. Gittleman , Mark R. Rosen , Gerald J. , Seattle, WA, Daniel Richard Karon , Weinstein
Rodos , Barrack, Rodos & Bacine , Steven J. Kitchenoff Scarlato Karon & Goldman Ltd. ,
Greenfogel , Meredith Cohen Greenfogel & Cleveland, OH, Isaac Diel , Diel & Seelman ,
Skirnick, P.C. , Douglas A. Abrahams , Joseph C. Prairie Village, KS, Krislma B. Narine , Law Office
Kolm , William E. Hoese , Kohn, Swift & Graf , of Krishna B. Narine , Elkins Park, PA, Stephen E.
Howard J. Sedran , Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Comrolly , Schiffrin & Barroway , Radnor, PA,
Berman , Steven A. Asher , Eugene A. Spector , Peter A. Pease , Berman Devalerio Pease Tabacco
Jeffrey J. Corrigan , William G. Caldes , Spector, Burt & Pucillo , Boston, MA, Joseph J. Depalma ,
Roseman & Kodroff , Philadelphia, PA, Brian P. Lite, Depalma, Greenberg And Rivas, LCC,
Daniels , David R. Schaefer, Brenner, Saltzman & Newark, NJ, Ami D. White , Mager, White &
Wallman , Ethan A. Levin-Epstein , Joseph D. Goldstein , Jenkintown, PA, Garrett D. Blanchfield
Garrison , Garrison Levin-Epstein Chimes & , Mark Reinhardt , Reinhardt & Anderson , John A.
Richardson , New Haven, CT, Joseph Goldberg , Cochrane , Cochrane & Bresnahan, St. Paul, MN,
Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg , for Plaintiffs.
PA, Albuquerque, NM, Elizabeth H. Cronise , Daniel W. Nelson , James R. Loftis, III , Joshua
Jennifer Gross , Robert G. Eisler , Lieff, Cabraser, Lipton , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher , Alan M.
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP , Bernard Persky , Wiseman , Joseph A. Ostoyich , Howrey, Simon,
Hollis L. Salzman , Kimberly Nelson , Goodkind, Arnold & White , Nicholas R. Koberstein ,
Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow , Gregory K. Arenson Mcdermott, Will & Emery , Mark R. Merley ,
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&f`ormat=HTMLE&dataid=A0055800000... 9/ l4/2005

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 135-6 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 215igF 3 0105
Slip Copy Page 2
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1629633 (D.Comi.), 2005-2 Trade Cases P 74,884
(Cite as: Slip Copy)
Arnold & Porter , Edwin L. Fountain , John M. also members of the putative class, though not
Majoras , Jones Day , Michael E. Lackey, Jr. , named plaintiffs. The defendants, who are the same
Richard J. Favretto , Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw in both actions, have sought discovery from the
LLP , Washington, DC, Robert M. Langer , Wiggin Individual Plaintiffs on issues related to class
& Dana , Steven David Ecker , Cowdery, Ecker & certification, that is, discovery solely on the basis of
Murphy , Diane Woodfield Whitney , Katherine A. the Individual Plaintiffs' status as “absent class
Scanlon , Lee D. Hoffman , Pullman & Comley , members" in the class action lawsuit, not their status
Hartford, CT, Suzanne Ellen Wachsstock , Wiggin as plaintiffs in their individual lawsuit. Because the
& Dana , Jonathan B. Tropp , Kermeth W. Ritt , defendants have not made the requisite showing for
Day, Beny & Howard LLP , Stamford, CT, Andrew obtaining discovery from absent class members, this
Benjamin Nevas , Frank J. Silvestri, Jr. , Levett court will not permit that discovery to take place.
Rockwood , Madeleine F. Grossman , Levett
Rockwood, PC , Dan E. Labelle , Halloran & Sage ,
Westport, CT, Lisa C. Sullivan , Howrey, Simon, FN1. The Individual Plaintiffs are Three Z
Arnold & White LLP , David Marx, Jr. , Mcdermott Printing Company and Nies Artcraft
Will & Emery , Brian J. Murray , Jones Day , Companies Inc.
Chicago, IL, Marc D. Ashley , Jerome S. Fortinsky ,
Kenneth M. Kramer , Paul Lekas , Shearman & I. Background
Sterling , Saralisa C. Brau , Mcderrnott, Will &
Emery, LLP , Edward D. Hassi , Helena Almeida , Merits discovery in this consolidated litigation is
Mark G. Cunha , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP , currently stayed. Discovery related to class
New York, NY, Hugh F. Bangasser , Preston Gates certification, however, is proceeding in the class
& Ellis , Seattle, WA, Theresa L. Keyes , Preston, action component of the litigation. As part of class
Gates & Ellis , Spokane, WA, Diane E. Pritchard , certification discovery, the defendants served
Jesse W. Markham , Stuart C. Plunkett , Morrison subpoenas on the Individual Plaintiffs seeking to
& Foerster, LLP , San Francisco, CA, Adam J. compel (a) their attendance at depositions and (b)
Cohen , James T. Shearin , Pullman & Comley , the production of documents. Though in the form of
Shelley R. Sadin , Zeldes, Needle & Cooper , Felice third-party subpoenas under Rule 45, the
M. Duffy , Zeldes, Needle & Cooper , Bridgeport, information sought by those subpoenas is virtually
CT, Jonathan S. Katz , David L. Belt , Jacobs, identical to the information that the defendants have
Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C. , S. Peter Saclmer sought from named plaintiffs in the class action
, Timothy P. Jensen , Michael George Caldwell , pursuant to the rules goveming party discovery.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP , New Haven, CT,
Ryan M. Disantis , Ropes & Gray , Boston, MA, After a brief exchange of letters with the
James R. Fogarty , Fogarty, Cohen, Selby & defendants, the Individual Plaintiffs filed a motion
Nemiroff , Greenwich, CT, Melissa J. Nandi , Jones to quash the subpoenas, pursuant to Rule 45(c), or
Day , Cleveland, OH, Joseph E. Hopkins , Latham for entry of a protective order, pursuant to Rule
And Watkins , Newark, NJ, Garrett S. Flyrm , Law 26(c). The defendants have objected and filed their
Offices of Garrett S. Flynn, LLC, Farmington, CT, own motion to compel compliance with the
for Defendants. subpoenas. FN2
DISCOVERY RULING
FN2. It does not appear that all parties
UNDERHILL, J. supplied my chambers with courtesy
*1 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: copies of their memoranda in support of
their motions. In the future, parties should
This consolidated litigation includes a class action endeavor to adhere to Practice and
lawsuit and a lawsuit brought by two individual Procedure Order No. 5 (doc. # 152), which
plaintiffs ("the Individual Plaintiffs"), FN] who are states: "Courtesy copies of all memoranda
© 2005 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http ://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 9/14/2005

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 135-6 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 315%% 4 Of5
Slip Copy Page 3
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1629633 (D.Corm.), 2005-2 Trade Cases P 74,884
(Cite as: Slip Copy)
of law and any attached exhibits should be particular discovery and (2) narrowly tailor its
provided to chambers." (emphasis requests to its particular need, so as not to burden
supplied). the absent members. See, e.g. Laborers Local 17 v.
Philip Morris, 1998 WL 241279 (S.D.N.Y. May
II. Discussion 12, 1998) ; Town of New Castle v. Yonkers
Contracting Company, Inc., 1991 WL 159848
As a preliminary matter, the defendants argue that (S.D.N.Y. Aug.l3, 1991).
the Individual Plaintiffs' motion has failed to
comply with the requirements of both Federal Rule *2 The present situation is slightly atypical because
26(c) and Local Rule 37.2, which require that a the defendants are not seeking party discovery, but
party seeking a protective order must certify that it third-party discovery pursuant to subpoena. FN3
has attempted in good faith to resolve the dispute As a teclmical matter, therefore, the source of the
with the other party. I agree that it would have been authority for these discovery requests is Rule 45 not
preferable for the Individual Plaintiffs to engage in Rule 23(d). I do not believe that this procedural
a more meaningful discussion with the defendants difference has any practical effect. Rule
than appears to have occurred. Nevertheless, I 45(c)(3)(A)(iv) requires a court to quash or modify
decline to dispose of the motion on that ground. a subpoena if it "subjects a person to undue burden."
First, to the extent that the Individual Plaintiffs are Similarly, Rule 26(c) allows a court to impose a
moving to quash under Rule 45(c), there is no protective order if necessary to protect any person
certification requirement under either federal or from "undue burden." I conclude that these rules
local rule, though this does not of course obviate impose on parties seeking third—party discovery
counsels‘ professional obligation to deal in good from absent class members at least the same
faith with their adversaries. Second, and more obligations as would apply were the discovery
significantly, under the circumstances, I think it sought under the party discovery rules. Any other
more efficient to dispose of the present dispute on holding would allow Rule 45 to be used to end-run
the merits, rather than require additional discussions around Rule 23. Consequently, although the
between the parties. defendants here have sought discovery by
subpoena, the standard that guides my decision
Turning to the merits, the Individual Plaintiffs' whether to permit such discovery is the same as the
principal argument is that, as absent class members, standard that applies had this discovery been sought
they should not be subject to discovery absent a in the form of party discovery requests.
compelling showing of need by the defendants. In
general, that is correct. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not provide for discovery from absent FN3. The fact that discovery is sought by
class members as “parties." In other words, party subpoena does not deprive this court of
discovery techniques-such as interrogatories, jurisdiction to rule on the pending motions,
document requests, and requests for even though the subpoenas were not issued
admissions-only apply to named plaintiffs in a class in this district. Because this multidistrict
action, not absent class members. Nevertheless, litigation has been consolidated for
under the general authority provided to them in the pre-trial purposes, 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b)
class action context by Rule 23(d), federal courts authorizes this court to "exercise the
have, on occasion, allowed such discovery to take powers of a district judge in any district."
place. See Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice See generally In re Orthopedic Bone
and Procedure § 1796.1 (collecting cases). Screw Products Litigation, 79 F.3d 46 (7th
Recognizing that such a step runs contrary to the Cir.l996) (discussing multidistrict
general intention of Rule 23 to allow unnamed class transferee court's authority to rule on
members to remain passive, those courts that have third-party discovery issues arising in other
allowed such discovery have required the defendant districts).
to (1) make a strong showing of the need for the
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055800000... 9/14/2005

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 135-6 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 4 Eric 5 Of5
Slip Copy Page 4
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1629633 (D.Conn.), 2005-2 Trade Cases P 74,884
(Cite as: Slip Copy)
Under that standard, I fmd that the defendants have It is so ordered.
not made a showing sufficient to warrant taking
discovery from absent class members. First, the D.Conn.,2005.
defendants have given only the vaguest of In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation
indications why such discovery is necessary, citing Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1629633 (D.Conn.), 2005-2
to issues of commonality and typicality that would Trade Cases P 74,884
appear to apply to all class members in every class
action. Second, the defendants have apparently only Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
sought such discovery from two absent class
members, and those absent class members happen · 2004 WL 3043859 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
to be the two plaintiffs in the individual lawsuit, a and Affidavit) Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of
fact that raises a concem that the proposed %ADProposed%BD Pre—Trial Order No. 1 (Dec.
discovery is being sought to gain a tactical 02, 2004)
advantage rather than needed information. FN4 · 3:04md0l63l (Docket) (Nov. 15, 2004)
Third, there is no indication that the defendants · 2004 WL 3043878 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
have in any way attempted to narrow their requests and Affidavit) Motion of Plaintiffs Three Z Printing
to respect the Federal Rules‘ preference for allowing Co. and Nies Artcraft Co., Inc.‘s for Appointment of
absent class members to remain passive in a class Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC as
action litigation. On the contrary, the defendants Interim Lead Counsel (2004)
acknowledge that they are requesting exactly the
same documents and information from absent class END OF DOCUMENT
members as from named plaintiffs. Accordingly, on
the present showing, I am not convinced that the
requested discovery is needed.
FN4. The defendants will, of course, be
permitted to seek discovery from the
Individual Plaintiffs in their individual
case. That discovery, however, has been
stayed, as has all merits discovery in this
consolidated litigation.
III. Conclusion
The Individual Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective
Order or Order Quashing Subpoenas (doc. # 165) is
GRANTED. The subpoenas served on the
Individual Plaintiffs' are quashed. Until the stay of
merits discovery is lifted, the defendants may seek
no further discovery from the Individual Plaintiffs
without leave of this court. The defendants' Motion
to Compel (doc. # 170) is DENIED.
Under the circumstances of the present case,
requiring payment of expenses or imposing
sanctions in connection with these motions,
pursuant to either Rule 37(a)(4) or Rule 45(c)(l), is
inappropriate and would be unjust.
© 2005 ThomsonNV est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html‘?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055800000... 9/14/2005