those requests is not a basis for a stay of discovery.
Plaintiffs also have requested further discovery pertaining to what
Clorox knew at the time it made the alleged statements. This motion turns
solely on what statements were made, however; that threshold matter can
be evaluated before Clorox's knowledge becomes relevant. Thus,
Defendants' failure to produce documents relevant to its knowledge in the
Spring of 1999 also provides no basis for a stay of discovery.
Finally, Plaintiffs request all documents relating to the conference
and meeting. The documents already produced by Defendants document what
was said at the meetings in question, however, and Plaintiffs have not
identified any material that would supplement the information already
provided by Johnston's speech script and the conference call transcript.
Both Johnston and Rose did engage in followup conversations following
their prepared remarks, but they both claim to have said nothing
different in those conversations than in their earlier remarks. Despite
Plaintiffs' contentions to the contrary, nothing in the analyst reports
based on the. Conference and conference call suggests otherwise.*fn4 A
vague suggestion that some other information might exist is insufficient
to overcome Defendants' insistence that they already have produced the
relevant documents, especially when those documents provide strong
evidence of what was actually said. Accordingly, this request also fails
to provide sufficient grounds for a stay of summary judgment.
D. Judgment on the Pleadings on the Remaining Claims
In addition to moving for summary judgment on the allegations
pertaining to the March conference and April conference call statements,
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on their remaining
allegations. They argue that since the Court already has determined that
those allegations fail to meet the PSLRA's pleading standards, judgment
on the pleadings is now appropriate. Plaintiffs disagree, and argue that
Defendants are simply revisiting arguments already rejected by the Court
when it refused to dismiss the TAC.
Plaintiffs are correct that Defendants request this court to revisit
the adequacy of the complaint. They are incorrect, however, that the
Court rejected Defendants' arguments. In denying Defendants' motion to
dismiss the TAC, the Court refused to divide the claim between colorable
and non-colorable elements, and instead chose to treat the motion as a
whole. It did not reject any of Defendants' arguments regarding the
inadequacy of the remainder of the pleadings. Instead, it clearly
concluded that, with the exception of the specific alleged March and
April statements, the pleadings failed to meet the standards of the
PSLRA. Now, having addressed the two allegations that provided the basis
for a colorable claim, the procedural moment is right for addressing the
remainder of the complaint. For the reasons stated in its three previous
orders, the Court grants Defendants' motion for judgment on the remainder
of the pleadings. See Heliotrope, 189 F.3d at 978-79.
Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants.
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are HEREBY GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the reasons stated in the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings, judgment is entered
in favor of Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED