Opinion
Master Docket No. 1:05-cv-1009-LJM-TAB.
July 14, 2009
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to compel. [Docket No. 160.] Plaintiffs' motion relates to more than a dozen requests for production Plaintiffs served upon the Defendants generally involving the following two categories of documents: (1) Defendants' internal financial forecasts, estimates, and projections as provided to senior management; and (2) documents regarding whether the Defendants were aware of the existence of a material problem in specific devices identified in the amended complaint during certain specified time periods. The Court heard argument on this discovery dispute during a May 14, 2009, telephonic status conference, and ordered briefing on the issues, which the Court has received and reviewed. [Docket Nos. 160, 162.] For the reasons set forth in Defendants' opposition, as highlighted below, Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied.
As Defendants correctly point out, Plaintiffs' disputed discovery requests improperly focus on merits-based issues. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is yet another attempt to relitigate the bifurcation order that is in place. [Docket No. 162 at 2.] Plaintiffs attempt to support their motion by way of an affidavit from Professor Steven P. Feinstein. But as Defendants persuasively note, Feinstein does not claim that internal projections and forecasts are needed to calculate damages, thereby undercutting Plaintiffs' motion as to the first category of documents. [Docket No. 162 at 4.] Such projections/forecasts could be relevant to the company's stock price if made available to the public in analysts' reports, but any such public information would be readily available to the Plaintiffs.
The second category of documents sought by Plaintiffs — those relevant to determining whether Defendants were aware of the existence of a material problem in specific devices — quite obviously seeks discovery related to liability as opposed to damages. As a result, such discovery once again goes beyond the permissible limits of the bifurcation order. To Plaintiffs' credit, they offered a compromise on this discovery, but Defendants rejected this offer. [Docket No. 160 at 4.] Given the breadth of Plaintiffs' disputed discovery, Defendants' refusal to compromise on this point, while disappointing to the Plaintiffs, was justifiable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel [Docket No. 160] is denied.