Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 1 of 30

ORIGINAL FILING DATE: APRIL 24, 2007 REDACTED FILING DATE: MAY 1, 2007

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 2 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 3 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 4 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 5 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 6 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 7 of 30

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 8 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 9 of 30



Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 10 of 30

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 11 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 12 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 13 of 30

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 14 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 15 of 30

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 16 of 30

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 17 of 30

EXHIBIT E

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Slip Copy Slip Copy, 2007 WL 210110 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cite as: Slip Copy)

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 18 of 30
Page 1

In re Vecco Instruments, Inc. Securities Litigation S.D.N.Y.,2007. Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court,S.D. New York. In re VECCO INSTRUMENTS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 05 MD 1695(CM)(GAY). Jan. 25, 2007. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER YANTHIS, J. *1 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL ACTIONS Presently before this Court is plaintiffs' motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), wherein plaintiffs seek an Order directing defendants to produce all documents related to the investigation of TurboDisc accounting and the restatement of Vecco's financials. Defendants assert, inter alia, that the Kaye Scholer and Jefferson Wells investigative reports, along with the documents prepared in support of said reports, constitute privileged work product. Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that the work product privilege is inapplicable because the documents at issue were not prepared in anticipation of litigation and, in any event, plaintiffs have demonstrated substantial need for the documents. Plaintiffs also argue that defendants' "public disclosure" of the information constituted a waiver of any work product privilege. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied. A. The Work Product Privilege Pursuant to the work product doctrine, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are not discoverable absent a showing that the party seeking discovery has a substantial need for the materials and cannot obtain the equivalent without undue hardship. See FRCP 26(b)(3). As to the "anticipation of litigation" requirement, the Second Circuit has held that a document which is privileged work product "does not lose work-product protection merely because it is inten-

ded to assist in the making of a business decision influenced by the likely outcome of the anticipated litigation. Where a document was created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been prepared in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation, it falls within Rule 26(b)(3)." United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1195 (2d Cir.1998). The party claiming the privilege has the burden of demonstrating that the privilege exists and that it has not been waived. See von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.1987). In opposition to plaintiffs' assertion that the documents at issue were not prepared in anticipation of litigation, defendants proffer the Declaration of Rory A. Greiss, a partner at Kaye Scholer, who avers the following: Kaye Scholer has served as outside securities counsel to Vecco Instruments, Inc. since 1993. After Vecco's internal auditing personnel discovered potentially erroneous or improper accounting transactions in Vecco's TurboDisc business division, members of Vecco's management contacted Greiss for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Greiss believed that a financial restatement might be required, which Greiss expected would likely subject Vecco to litigation. Vecco authorized Kaye Scholer to conduct an internal investigation and to retain Jefferson Wells, a forensic accounting firm, to assist in the investigation. Greiss, and other members of Kaye Scholer, supervised and directed the work of Jefferson Wells, all of which was done for the purpose of assisting Kaye Scholer in providing legal advice to Vecco regarding its financial statements, past and future disclosures and possible litigation arising therefrom. *2 Defendants also proffer the Affidavit of John F. Rein, Vecco's Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, who avers that the documents at issue were prepared because of the anticipated litigation and "would not have been prepared by Vecco in the ordinary course of business, nor would Vecco prepare work in a form substantially similar to that prepared by Kaye Scholer and Jefferson Wells." (¶ 11.)

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case Slip Copy 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Slip Copy, 2007 WL 210110 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cite as: Slip Copy)

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 19 of 30 2 Page

Based upon the Greiss Declaration and the Rein Affidavit, I conclude that the documents at issue are eligible for protection under Rule 26(b)(3). Further, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial need necessary to overcome the privilege, given that defendants have already produced voluminous amounts of non-privileged accounting-related documents, including: documents prepared by Vecco's own financial professionals and internal and external auditors concerning TurboDisc's potentially improper accounting transactions; documents related to Vecco's internal audit of TurboDisc; documents reflecting Vecco's own investigation into TurboDisc's financial controls and the accuracy of its financial statements; and documents prepared by Vecco's financial professionals concerning the preparation of its financial restatement. Accordingly, this Court declines to order the production of the documents at issue under exceptions to the work-product privilege. B. Waiver "The work product privilege is not automatically waived by any disclosure to third persons. Rather, the courts generally find a waiver of the work product privilege only if the disclosure substantially increases the opportunity for potential adversaries to obtain the information." Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 441, 445-46 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (quotations and citations omitted). Here, plaintiffs contend that defendants waived work-product protection through two disclosures: a March 16, 2005 press release and an August 3, 2005 letter from Kaye Scholer to the SEC. The press release announced to investors that Vecco had completed its internal investigation and concluded that "the improper accounting entries were made by a single individual at TurboDisc." The SEC letter stated that "there were not sufficient facts to come to a conclusion on whether the improper accounting entries were made intentionally." Clearly, the disclosures cited by plaintiff merely summarized the findings and conclusions of the internal investigation and did not quote, paraphrase or reference any of the specific documents at issue in support of its conclusions. Said limited disclosure does not constitute waiver of the work product privilege. See e.g., In re Dayco, 99 F.R.D. 616, 619 (S.D.Ohio 1983) (no waiver where press re-

lease disclosed findings of an internal investigation but did not summarize evidence in the report). I conclude, therefore, that the documents at issue constitute privileged work product, that defendants have not waived said privilege and that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate substantial need necessary to overcome the privilege. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED. *3 SO ORDERED: S.D.N.Y.,2007. In re Vecco Instruments, Inc. Securities Litigation Slip Copy, 2007 WL 210110 (S.D.N.Y.) END OF DOCUMENT

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 20 of 30

EXHIBIT F

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 21 of 30

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 22 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 23 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 24 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 25 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 26 of 30

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 27 of 30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 1, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to the following: John R. Alison, Parker H. Bagley, Robert J. Benson, Robert Karl Beste, III, Elizabeth L. Brann, Christopher E. Chalsen, Hua Chen, Arthur G. Connolly, III, Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Francis DiGiovanni, Thomas M. Dunham, Kevin C. Ecker, Amy Elizabeth Evans, York M. Faulkner, Maria Granovsky, Christopher J. Gaspar, Alexander E. Gasser, Alan M. Grimaldi, Thomas C. Grimm, Thomas Lee Halkowski, Angie Hankins, Richard L. Horwitz, Dan C. Hu, John T. Johnson, Robert J. Katzenstein, Nelson M. Kee, Richard D. Kelly, Matthew W. King, Stephen S. Korniczky, Gary William Lipkin, Hamilton Loeb, Robert L. Maier, David J. Margules, David Ellis Moore, Carolyn E. Morris, Arthur I. Neustadt, Elizabeth A. Niemeyer, Andrew M. Ollis, Karen L. Pascale, Adam Wyatt Poff, Leslie A. Polizoti, John F. Presper, Alana A. Prills, Steven J. Rizzi, Lawrence Rosenthal, Avelyn M. Ross, Philip A. Rovner, Diana M. Sangelli, Robert C. Scheinfeld, Carl E. Schlier, Chad Michael Shandler, John W. Shaw, Matthew W. Siegal, Neil P. Sirota, Monte Terrell Squire, William J. Wade, Roderick B. Williams, Edward R. Yoches.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 28 of 30

I also certify that on May 1, 2007, I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following as indicated below: BY E-MAIL: John W. Shaw Monte T. Squire YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 [email protected] Attorneys for Sony Corporation Karen L. Pascale YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP The Brandywine Building, 17th floor 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc.

Philip A. Rovner POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 [email protected] Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

David J. Margules John M. Seaman BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1400 Wilmington DE 19801 [email protected] Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

Gary W. Lipkin DUANE MORRIS LLP 1100 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801-1246 [email protected] Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 [email protected] Attorneys for Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Wintek Corp., Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation, Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 29 of 30

Robert C. Scheinfeld Neil P. Sirota BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Hitachi Displays, Ltd.

Andrew M. Ollis OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 [email protected] Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc.

Elizabeth A. Niemeyer FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] York M. Faulkner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 [email protected] Attorneys for Wintek Corp. and Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation

Stephen S. Korniczky Elizabeth L. Brann PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 [email protected] [email protected]

Hamilton Loeb PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] Attorneys for Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc.

John Flock KENYON & KENYON One Broadway New York, NY 10004-1050 [email protected] Attorneys for Sony Corporation

Stuart Lubitz HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 788

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 30 of 30

Lawrence Rosenthal Matthew W. Siegal STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

Donald R. McPhail DUANE MORRIS LLP 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Seong Yoon Jeong Assistant Manager Technology Planning Group BOE HYDIS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. San 136-1, Ami-ri, Bubal-eub Ichon-si, Gyeonggi-do 467-701 Republic of Korea

/s/ Thomas C. Grimm Thomas C. Grimm (#1098) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 658-9200 [email protected]
734570

4