Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schroeder

September 15, 2008

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KENNETH L. SCHROEDER, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Howard R. Lloyd, U.S. Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE MOTION OF KENNETH L. SCHROEDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS (TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS) BY (1) KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION AND (2) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM COMMITTEE OF KLA'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS [DKT. NO. 75]

(MODIFIED BY THE COURT)

Date: September 23, 2008

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 8

Judge: Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

WHEREAS, Defendant Kenneth L. Schroeder ("Schroeder") issued subpoenas to nonparties Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and individual Skadden attorneys Galen Bellamy, Jack DiCanio, Zvi Gabbay, Elizabeth Harlan, Victoria Holstein-Childress, Cale Keable, Morgan Lopez, Richard Marmaro, Thomas McDonald, Lanelle Meidan, Jonah Van Zandt and Sheryl Wu (collectively, "Skadden"), and separately to non-party KLA-Tencor Corporation ("KLA"); and

WHEREAS, Skadden and KLA timely objected to the subpoenas in part on the ground that they called for the production of documents and information protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine; and

WHEREAS, Skadden, KLA and Schroeder engaged in a "meet and confer" process to resolve their disputes, but were ultimately unsuccessful; and

WHEREAS, on June 9, 2008, Schroeder filed his Motion of Kenneth L. Schroeder to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Requests (Testimony and Documents) By (1) KLATencor Corporation and (2) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attorneys for the Special Committee of KLA's Board of Directors (the "Motion to Compel") (Dkt. No. 75), originally setting the Motion to Compel for hearing on July 15, 2008, and later, at the request of KLA and Skadden, continuing the hearing to August 26, 2008; and

WHEREAS, at the request of KLA and Skadden, the parties filed a stipulation dated July 25, 2008 (Dkt. No. 81) setting forth a proposed briefing schedule and continuing the hearing on the Motion to Compel to September 9, 2008, and, based on the Court's order on that stipulation dated August 1, 2008 (Dkt. No. 83), a schedule was set for the completion of briefing on the Motion to Compel and the hearing on the Motion to Compel was continued to September 23, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.; and

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2008, Skadden filed its opposition to Schroeder's Motion to Compel, arguing principally that the documents and information sought in Schroeder's subpoenas were protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine (Dkt. No. 84, and related entries); and

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2008, Schroeder filed his reply brief in support of his Motion to Compel (the "Schroeder Reply") (Dkt. No. 89) in which he argues, in part, that "the Court need not even consider any of Skadden's arguments concerning work product protection," citing cases including In re California Public Utilities Commission, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1989) (hereinafter "CPUC") (see Schroeder's Reply (Dkt. 89) at page 17 line 1 through page 18 line 8); and

WHEREAS, Skadden contends that Schroeder's argument based on CPUC and related cases was not raised by Schroeder in the "meet and confer" process or at any point ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.