Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 1 of 7

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 2 of 7

B E R N S T E I N LITOWITZ B E R G E R Q G R O S S M A N N ,
:

LLP*

.

I

A T T O R N E Y S AT

LAW

May 23; 2005

KatynJ. yaaae; Eaq.

LLP Times Square ~ o w a 7 Tim- Squaw New Y a k , NY 8 0036
O'Wvc11y & M y e m

Re:

b

K G mutl -

0 ~

.

.

Dear Karyn:
'

We write in response to your May 19,205 letter regarding the partied May: 13

. mEet and confer tslcconfaence, in which you and Mark Germam participated for . Defendants, and Brym Wood, Eric Kanefsky and I representea Lead Plainti&.

As an i$itial matter, there is a wide divergence b m a n the tone of your letter and thc tone of our;aotualconversation. Piim lo receiving your Icttcr. we believed th;lt tht meet and confer, which lasted over two hours, was quite productive, notwithstandbig that you began the ball by stating that neither you nor M r had any authority to reach anj ak ~ m e u that the only purpose of the call was for b a d Plaintiffs to mta* or g m n arid , modify their pbsjlions regarding Defendants' discovery requests.' I youi lctm. you make numerous ad horninern attaokc againrt Lcad Counsel. n W a r than indulge these baseless attacks on our good faith, we choose instcad to fkus on the substaniivc issues raised i your I-, n as we arc committed to making mlon6ble compromises to avoid burdening the Court with thesc issues. That said, your I&$; which we regived on Thursday evening, May 19,2005, demands that we provide you with definitive responses to all ourstanding issucs by May 23,2005 (i.8.. two busineas daye later). %ecially because Defendants' written positions arc such a matked , departure from those they espoused during the meel and confer. an Immediate r h n r r i~ s

b a mbtra of funm -01 for met and cdm. we ark that at tep81 oac attorney $& aurhorhy on thc submntivr LNU pni(icipatso on your clients' b c W . Comrcniag r'mect'uPd ad- m d w h g 0.1 are m b k t rcach.my agmcmcno dafoatu Q e pupoct o r k w ~ d l . p o
1 reach a 0

:

q

1 2 8 5 AVEN'UE O F T H E A M E R I C A S N E W YORK N Y 10;019.-6026 T E L E P ~ H O N ~ :1 2 - 5 5 4 - 1 4 0 0 2 www.blbglaw.com FACSIMILE: 21 2i554-1144
!

4 > <

.
05/25/2005 W E D 20:07 [ T X / R X

8

.

N O 73311 B O O 2

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

MY-2846

I0 $8

Frw:BLu

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 3 of 7
T-276
P.oam6

J O ~

.'

'

Karyn J. Yaff", Esq. May 23.2: . Pege 2 .., simply m possible. We will provide h a 1 confihatian of our positions by May 3 1, t 2005. :

.
8

.

. , .
!
2 .

.

.

'In the in&.:to
General Mntte~g ]

avoid any further confusion, the following rcfkm the issues that 1. .i

: arc actually still outswinp:

. . .

.i ! . . .

'

: i

. . .
:
.

:

;

.
,

Punt, Defmdtints inquired as t when Lead Plain- will pmducb a privilege log. ( ; o As Lead Plaintiff8' objectians and msponsar indicate, the appllcabls %levant time , . , , period" for the responses. and therefore the assntions of privilege, should be limited to i .: the 'ClassPeriod." As w haw not identified any p i documents h m the Class j! , e rw i v Period, we did n6t provide a Mvilega bg with ow initial prrrduction ofdocumate. 1 ' Howover, in the intennt of compronioe, as long as Def-ts reciprocate,Ltad .. .. Plaintiffa are prepared to provide a privilege log to Dckndaaur by May 25,2605, that includes all privilcgcd eernmunicntions i our clionrs' pmmssion that predate the filing of j f n . . tbe Consolidated and Amended Complaint, dated February 15,2002 (LCAmcndcd : , Complaint"). This proposed compromise s h d d alleviatethe concerns you expmad h ! . your l t r We believe this , ~ lallow both paaim to a d d the pointless burden of ae , l logging the many documents that arc patently protected by tbe astorncy work p d w : docblne and attorney client privilqa, md that have bwn ganmed a h the filing of the Amended Complaint. Please let us know immediately if p u spec to this proposal and . intend to reciprocate. In any svant, w hereby a+ly m-prsert all applicable e : . , , . , . . . privileges regarding any privileged documents in our clicuts' possession. . . . Next, you asked whether Lead Plainti% are withholding relovant noo-privileged ; j , , documents based solely on their "gcncral obJections." We indioetsd that we & not ! ' .bclicve my dooumints are being withhold in thismanna;but will v d f L this and get i . back to YOU? Finally, wc can confinn rhat Srtalcgic Msrlwl Analysls Fund has no 0 t h ~ non-privilegedrelevant documente rerpomiva to Dcfdndiinta' Fist and Secand Rqkiklm . :. . . ., : . for Raduetiorr of Doclunentsbeyond those already produced. 4 . . m Resuest for Production of Documents t
0

.
'
i c

.

i

,

:

.

.,

. i

;

.

Generu~'~&ction 4: As we explained to you on tbe call, while we do not No. a p e with your podtion that documents publicly available m Dcfadanb must be produced, we will novenhelerr confinn in writing whether any documents src being wi'hhelb solely based on this objection and, if so, wtrclher they will be produced, by ~
31,2005.
,

.

. ,

a .y

., . . . . : .
I

i

i

.

.
,

d ..: ~ c n v Objections Nar. 5 and 7: We explainad to p u that the only "agentr' who conceivably have any documents that art arguably rwpanoive to Defendants' rcqucsts are Lead Counsel or Lead Plaintiffs' investment mnpBerc. With r a p e to Ld u , . Counsel, any request for documents in our possession is wholly improper. Any ; ;
.i
' '

,

dchiled below.

Your le& a m Idiir~tnt qu&titio ihmthe one you n i r d on tbc call, whkh is Pmcther:w~, arc withboldbg any documents based on any dLcad Plsintifh' objmths. Whila this is not the quatiaa you RiwQ during *,=%the answ- can ne=dmless be found in our rrsponsts to the spbciiic rrequesb :
:

*

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 4 of 7

Karyn J, Yaffec, Esq.
May 23,2005

Pap3

.

,

'

.

control of Lead Plainti%. r~pnsentcd you on thb call, we will check to : . Aequmzs Nos. 2, 3,S, 6, 7-8: & %k : wiOl our olienta to anfirm whether them arc any non-privileged responsive documenta ' that arc being withheld on tho basis ofany of Lead PlainUfB' objections b thece rcqwts. Regurprr Nos. 9-10: As w c~pldaed you on tho d ,h e requests arc e t o lt . patatly ovdroad. Appanntly recognizing the over breadth of thew reqnuts, you agrecd to consider mising them. H w v r in your letter you take ismo with the fiot ooe, '. that H 'Bave not proposed alkmativcb." AB M .Sushon previously stated. it is not the r ablimtion of a responding paty lo propose proper altmativuito deficient ~rquc~ta. . Indeed, at Mr. Sushon's suggestion, we evemually rcdrnhd o w d ofLand Plsinliffs' . documart reqwotr propounded on Defendwtr. We m a i n open to considering revised' fcquap thst scelc relevant docum&. Regvest NO.11: Your argument that Lnad Plaintiffs' tax mlumti are relevant to. their ability to finance the prosecution ofthis action i s mdtlcss, Isad PlaimifPs consist . of two large public pension funds and a'largc hesbnent h d who haw bcan involvod'in this m e for o v a Ulrec years. Further, booaurs thio action was undertalcep by Lead C o u ~ eon a contingency besis, Lmd.Plaintiffsare ~ ~ i bfor only nominal l l a &pcnses i conncctian with this action; T h m is na legitimate question that Lead n ; PJ&& arc able ta finance any nominal expenses they may in&. As we represented during the call, we will product Chicago Police's annual rcporta from 1998 LO pmcnt to ,'the extent such reports exist. Request No. 13: M .Surhan specifically rejected a ~imilat r "catch-all" request by . Plaintiffs, and you provide no bash to $stinguish this rquest. As ntch, our objection will stand. Request No. 34: We stand b i o& objections t this request. o Rcguesr No. 15: We explained that we do not u d t n what documunts n& P ma d l ; to Lcad Plaintiffs' damages other tban the firnds' aading mords, which have already been produced. 0n.the call, you explained that Defendants arc also setking any documents reflecting Lead Plaintiffk' "dto lose money" on their investments in ICG stock. W agreed to confm with our cliente whether my such documents exist. You e now rcstzitc: thst tho request reeks "dl"documents concerning Lcad Plaintiffs' individual damages other than their trading teaor&. As we explained on thc call, wc do not understand.whet type of documents Defendants pre seeking. Howcver, we will gladly I snteatdn a redrafted rquest that accurately reflects the documents Defendants art
, ,
'

doounAts in the porsdon of Lead Plrintiffi' investmen& managers arc bcyond the

,

s#king. Request No. 16: We stand by ow objetion that the retainer agreement entered imd between h a d Plaintifls md Lead Counsel is protectad by the attorney-client privilege and is irrelevant, and wc can confirm that there arc no othcr documcntr that would be responsive to this requent. .
'

.

Roqnarts Nos. 17-18: Ar we kplained to you on the call, thisc requests arc ovubmad as fhay seek evcry documem relating to any litigation Lcad Plaintiffs wb19

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 5 of 7

K q l J. Yaffee, Esq.
May 23,2005
,

.
,

.,
'

Page4

.

.

aver inVolvad in. :'YOU wcre receptive to our position and &d to consider redrafttug: thenc raqua6ts. We arc still pnpered to a~tertah praparly narrowedrequests. swh :, . .. . Requesr No. IP: Wc will confhn with our cliants whetha my rsgponaive :. .doctunen& exist h d . if so, whcthtr they will be pFoduceh by May 3 1,2005. . Request No. 22: We will confirm with our c b whather my r-vc , . docyntats exist ,?and, so, whelher t h y will bo produced, by May 31,2005. if Reguest No. 21; We will with our clials whather any responsive j~. documents nrist.and, if so, whtthatbey will be p~odwd, May 31,2005. by Request No. 22: In your letter, you dunand that Lead Plaintiffs produce all '., d&memr that thcy'"may usen i Ucir reply papem to DefQldante' opposition briefto n . . the class certification motion. Howwcc, IS ordered by the Court in rteponse to Defendants' modon, class c-ertificadonbrletlng has been tmpororily oraycd in this case. ~Nevcrrhclc~. now demand U we produce my document8 that wc "may usewto you d . .:. respond to an opposition brief that we have not even sen. This is rwt only u~uamnable, ., . ' :, but i p s s i b l e . . . Regue~t 2 : A ~ w explained to mu on the &l, you already have the No. 3 e . .. .'. qualifications of our expat andwe a cansidering your request for documents m ..concerningthe qualifications of Willirm, F. Kelley, Jr., John J. Oallaghsr, and Yomi, i Rcdtig, to the &tat such document? exist. We will confirm whether these documchts :'. . will be produced by May 3 1,2005. . : .. . Requcsi No. 24: In light of D t f e n W agrecmcnl to reciprocate, Lead Plaintiffs . 1 '. agreo lo produ& mspansiva documents that were provided,by Lcad Plaintiffs to any wrd party cxpcrt used to suppon the clesr certjfication motion. .At rhls timc,tho only documents prwlded to Laad P1aintiffe' expert used to support class &fmtion motibn ,, . wcre the Amended Complain1 and the Court's August 24,2004 Order. . . Request No. 25: AS we hatie ideniified D .Sxin as an expert used to suppor~ r . Lcab Plaintiffs' class certificationmotion and his compensation is detailed in his , : . declaration. it is our position that his engagement later is not relcvant to this action. If you believe the terms of his engagunent are responsive on my other p u n d o please . ad*; , .
.
I

,"

~~

, ,

'

'

'

,

.'

'

,

I

,

.

Jt.$ j f .
.. . .
:

..
I '

. , . ., .
:

:

.,

.

Requeits Nos. 1-3: ~ h c s requeas seek all documents Lead Counsel Sscd, c reviewed. refcrcnccd, cit'b, or relied on in drafting the A m d m 3 Complaint." These are . unplecedatad requsts that seek to eliminate the m t y w o ~ k product doctrine. Hawwcr, m the interests of comprppli6e, we will produce all nonprivilegod documents, if my, in L e d Plaintiffs' posscosion. Please let us know in writing whcthcr rhis is : agrceablc, R e q m No. 4: We will confitin whether any responsive documents exist and. If s , whether rhty will bc produoed, by May 3 1.2005. . o
-

.

. .

.

,

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 6 of 7

Karyn J. Yaffoe, Esq. M y 23.2005 a Pages i.
. , . to impor &den with no likelihood of w graponlive m r t ~ a l As t journals. i n ~~. o notebooks or notes, we will confirm whether any responsive do~umems xia and,if so, o

whethex thejr will be produced, by May 3 1.2005. ..
.

I'

..

!

prat Set of lnterroertordft
~ e n kO?iection 7: Wi-t l No.

waiving this objtcd&. we umfmn that a thie t
,

tlme ir dosll,not alter any of our Z~PPMID~.

'

.. .

.

'

'

~ m i o n s ao fntemogcrlorlu Nm. 1-5: As we explait& to YOU on the cl, th$rc t al is nothing in the Fedkal Rules that r a q h us to divulge our confjdential witnmsea, lior ia there any requirement that we provide Dcfdmta with the m b ( 8 ) of the witncmcs &tem, v, Jksingrukr, who support each particular allegation. See Electronic 2003 U.S. Diet. LEXIS 11816 @D. Tax. June 27,2003); In re A s h w t h , Irc &c Litig., 213 F.R.D.'385 (SS. Cal. 2002): I n n M ' T c u o o y C t , Z e l z l g o p See. Lftig., 2002 US. Did. Lorin 13015 (C.D. Cal. Junc 14,2002). .Nevertheless,this situation is unique in that Defendants' alrcady have m s ofthis infixmation b c c w c Ld Plaintifi' Proposed' ot e Second Amtnded Complaint,ideatifimevery one of the coafidential sources relid on in the Athcndcd Complaint. Defmdanto aleo have Ltad P a n i f ' Second Amandad kritial litfi Pisolomum Statement, dated May 17,2005, which identifies every individual that Leudl Plaintiffs believe has information upon which they may mly to suppart the allqptiom in the mended camp la in^ While we pro not obIigcd to link our confidential soums to 'p&culsr paragrapha of the Amended Complaint, as that infarmation reflect6 attorney work product, we will agree to provide amended respmscs that generally identify the :wnfidsntiol sources relied on. Please let us kmw if this compromise is acceptable. . . ' , You conclude your letter by stating that despite our two hour mob and c o n f ~ '*%hlually issues still m a i n umcsolvccl" If that is the case, it i s plainly not the fault all ,of Lead Plaintiffs. Many, if not all, of these issues could have been resolved during,iht m&t and confer had Lead Plaintiffs' a m p a to cornpromiso not been a one-way s t w. In k, uniform rcsponso to our repeated attempts to reach campmmiscs was to &y t your "we +ill have to get back to you." 'Underthe circumscaqcas, it ir unclear how, a b m 'our concession to drop ivcry one of o h objections, my of these issues could have been: resolved on the call. Nevertheless, we hope that this letter and our continued efforts to negotiatt,in,goodS t h will resolve the outstanding imes without Court inmenti&. .

.

!

cc:
,

:

danie~ ~ c r g a ~ s q (by mail) L. ; . Nonnan Berman, Esq. (by cmail) Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (by email) !

Case 1:00-cv-01864-REB-BNB

Document 165-10

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 7 of 7

BERNSTEINLITOWITZ BERGER :&CfROSSMANNLLP'
'

I

1285 Avenue of the &issicas N m York, Nsw Yor&.10019 (212) 554-1400. Teleoopier (212)554.1444

I
i

i

I
I

i

TELECOPY TRANSMI'M'AL SHEET
FROM; Mar&Leh;oviteb, Eaq.

DAm: May 23,2005.

I

Re:
TO:

In re ICG!Comrnunicationr, bc.
I`hzp J; Yaffct,Esq.
!
'

PGS:
Wax:

C W ~ ~ W `' . 6W

ji
!

. .
(212) 326-2061
.,
,.

.;

FIRM: OYMcl+y % M y a . LLP
MESSAGE:
Please cl (212)-5%-1519 if not received. al

Tel: .(2 1 ) 728-5693: 2
,

.

.

.i
I

i

WARNMG: Thc mfo@aarion contained in this f d m i l e ii rnomcy pivilegod aad oonfidcllrtl hfo-n.inten&d only fw the use o{ kdividual o entity n d above. If the roadu of this rnecdgo i r o t tho m~ndi:d f* r &#em, o r the tmploycc or agent hpoarible to deliver it t the intended rcc$ian+ you arc hatby notifled thrt m dh!rlbutian o y or copying of t h t ~ ~ c a t i iosaictly prohibited. If you ha? . t e d this c o m ' c a t l o i in mot;plerse s n ~ notify w hmnedhly by lelephone and rcnrrn !he origid rqus at rhe above address by mil: ThplJr your I ~agbrio. 0890
I

i

!
8

!
I

1

li