In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation 02-CV-01486...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECL. OF PHILIP T. BESIROF ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES

MASTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW (EDL) sf-2240032

JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617) TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563) PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 185053) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef Straus, Anthony Muller, and Charles J. Abbe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To: All Actions

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL)

DECLARATION OF PHILIP T. BESIROF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES

Date: January 23, 2007 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: E, 15th Floor Before: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 714 Filed 12/12/2006 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECL. OF PHILIP T. BESIROF ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES


1

I, PHILIP T. BESIROF, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted

to practice before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP,

counsel of record in this action for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation (“JDSU”), Jozef

Straus, Anthony Muller, and Charles J. Abbe (collectively, the “JDSU Defendants”). I submit

this Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to the First Set

of Interrogatories, served by Defendants Anthony Muller and JDSU. If called as a witness, I

would testify to the following facts:

MR. MULLER’S INTERROGATORIES

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant Anthony Muller’s

First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (“Muller Interrogatories”), served on May 5, 2006.

3. On June 5, 2006, Plaintiffs served “Responses and Objections” to the Muller

Interrogatories that contained no substantive response but rather reiterated the same objections for

all 25 interrogatories. On July 28, 2006, Plaintiffs supplemented their responses to provide

substantive responses to Interrogatory Nos. 20, 22, and 24, which asked Plaintiffs whether they

contend they suffered a loss caused by any Defendant’s misrepresentation regarding JDSU’s

revenues (Interrogatory No. 20), value of JDSU’s inventory (Interrogatory No. 22), or value of

JDSU’s goodwill (Interrogatory No. 24). In response to each interrogatory, Plaintiffs stated that

they did contend they suffered a loss.

4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental

Responses and Objections to Defendant Anthony Muller’s First Set of Interrogatories to

Plaintiffs, served on September 11, 2006.

5. October 23, 2006, the parties participated in a telephone meet-and-confer session

to discuss the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses. Attached as Exhibit C is a true

and correct copy of a letter from Stuart Plunkett, counsel for the JDSU Defendants, to Michael

Stocker, counsel for Plaintiffs, sent on October 24, 2006. The letter describes the Defendants’

position that numerous interrogatory responses were deficient because they either failed to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



2

provide all of the information called for by the interrogatory, or raised the inappropriate objection

that a response would require expert analysis and therefore would not be provided until the close

of expert discovery. With respect to the 13 interrogatory responses at issue here, the parties

agreed that Plaintiffs would provide supplemental responses by October 28, 2006 (Interrogatory

Nos. 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 21, 23, and 25), confer with their expert by October 28, 2006 to

determine the anticipated supplement date (Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 12), or review Plaintiffs’

position and inform Defendants by October 28, 2006 of their decision (Interrogatory No. 17).

6. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a letter from Michael Stocker

to Stuart Plunkett sent on October 27, 2006. In the letter, Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they

would supplement those interrogatories that Plaintiffs did not believe required expert analysis by

November 14, 2006, and for those responses requiring expert analysis, Plaintiffs would provide

responses at the close of expert discovery.

7. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter from Stuart Plunkett to

Michael Stocker sent on December 5, 2006. The letter indicates that, to date, Plaintiffs had not

served any further supplemental responses or otherwise responded regarding the substance of the

meet and confer held on October 23, 2006. Because efforts to resolve these issues regarding

Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses through meet-and-confer efforts had reached an impasse, the

letter informs Plaintiffs of Defendants’ intent to file a motion to compel further responses to the

interrogatories at issue by December 12, 2006.

JDSU’S INTERROGATORIES

8. On April 8, 2005, JDSU served its first set of interrogatories on Plaintiffs and

Plaintiffs responded on May 16, 2005. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of

JDSU’S First Set of Interrogatories to Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust

Funds, served April 8, 2005. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Lead Plaintiff’s

Response to JDSU’S First Set of Interrogatories, served May 16, 2005.

9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an email dated November 9,

2006, from Anthony Harwood, counsel for Plaintiffs, to Terri Garland and Philip Besirof, counsel


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



3

for JDSU, in which Plaintiffs informed JDSU that they did not intend to supplement their

previously served responses.

10. Attached as Exhibit I is true and correct copy of an email dated December 7, 2006,

from Philip Besirof to Anthony Harwood, in which JDSU informed Plaintiffs that the parties had

reached an impasse with respect to the five interrogatory responses at issue in the meet and confer

and that JDSU would be seeking relief from the Court.

11. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the Court’s Order regarding the

Discovery Plan, dated November 10, 2005.

12. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Lead Plaintiff’s Supplemental

Response to Interrogatory No. 25 of JDSU’S First Set of Interrogatories, served November 22,

2005.

13. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Lead Plaintiff’s Supplemental

Responses to JDSU’S First Set of Interrogatories, served February 7, 2006.

14. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Initial

Disclosure Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1), served November 13, 2006.

15. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a letter dated December 11,

2006, from Anthony Harwood to Terri Garland, in which Plaintiffs informed JDSU that they

proposed to supplement their responses to all interrogatories by January 19, 2007.

16. Attached as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from Plaintiffs’

Response to JDSU’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters

Pension and Retirement System and Dennis McCool; and Response to Second Set of Requests for

Admission to Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds and Plaintiff Houston

Municipal Employees Pension System, dated November 6, 2006, including the response to

Request for Admission No. 21.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



4

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed in San Francisco, California,

on this 12th day of December 2006.

/s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof


Exhibit A

JORDfAT ETH (BAR NO. 121 6 17) TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563) PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 185053) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (41 5) 268-7000 Facsimile: (41 5) 268-7522

Attorneys for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles J. Abbe

UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT


OAKLAND DIVISION


This Document Relates to: All Actions

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW

DEFENDANT ANTHONY R MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS

PROPOUNDING PARTIES: Defendant Anthony R. Muller

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs

SET NUMBER: One

DEFENDANT MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLTFFS. Master File No. C-02-1486 CW sf-2 124 124

TO PLAINTIFFS:

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you are hereby requested to

answer, hlly and under oath, each of the Interrogatories set forth below by June 5,2006.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

A. "COMPLAINT'' means the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action

Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on January 9,2004, by Lead

Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.

B. "DEFENDANT(S)" means any or all of the defendants in this action: JDSU,

Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, Charles J. Abbe, and Kevin Kalkhoven.

C. "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" means any "writings," "recordings," or

"photographs" as those terms are defined by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and

case law, including materials stored electronically or electromagnetically (such as electronic

mail), and any drafts, alterations, modifications, and amendments of those writings,

recordings, photographs, or materials.

D. "IDENTIFY" when used regarding a DOCUMENT means to state its formal

and informal title(s); subject matter or nature; date(s) of preparation; date(s) of use; the

PERSON(S) who signed it or under whose name the DOCUMENT was issued; the author(s),

addressee(s) and recipient(s) of the DOCUMENT; and its present or last known custodian;

and, if the DOCUMENT is affixed with a Bates number, its Bates number.

E. "IDENTIFY" when used regarding a PERSON or entity means to state the

PERSON'S or entity's full name; present or last known business address; present or last

known business telephone number; present and former employers or business affiliations;

and present and former job titles and responsibilities.

F. "IDENTIFY" when used regarding a STATEMENT means to state the date

the STATEMENT was made; the content of the STATEMENT, including its precise

language where known; the PERSON(S) who made or participated in the making of the

DEFENDANT MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATOR~ES TO PLTFFS. Master File No. C-02- 1486 CW sf-2 124 124

STATEMENT; the PERSON(S) that YOU contend was responsible for the STATEMENT;

and, if applicable, the DOCUMENT(S) containing the STATEMENT.

G. "IDENTIFY" when used regarding a TRANSACTION means to state the

parties to the TRANSACTION; the goods, product, services, or h d s involved in the

TRANSACTION; the alleged date of the TRANSACTION: and the dollar amount of the

TRANSACTION.

H. "JDSU" means JDS Uniphase Corporation and all present and former officers,

directors, ernpIoyees, agents, representatives, and all other PERSON(S) or entities acting on

behalf of JDS Uniphase Corporation.

I. "PERSON(S)" includes, without limitation, individuals, corporations,

partnerships, limited partnerships, unincorporated associations, and a11 other governmental

and non-governmental entities.

J. "STATEMENT" means any communication potentially actionable under the

federal securities laws, including any transmission or exchange of information, opinions, or

thoughts, whether orally, in writing, or otherwise, including but not limited to information,

opinions, or thoughts transmitted in conversation, press reIeases, financial statements,

teleconferences, or otherwise.

K. "TRANSACTION" or "TRANSACTIONS" means any sale, lease, exchange,

consignment, shipment, or other ~ansfer of goods, products, services, or finds in the course

of business.

L. "YOU" and "YOUR" mean Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and

Trust Funds, Plaintiff-Intervenor Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System,

Plaintiff Dennis McCool, and Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees pension System, as

well as their present and former officers, directors, fiduciaries, general partners, limited

partners, employees, agents, representatives, accountants, brokers, attorneys, investigators,

consultants, advisors, and all other PERSON($) or entities acting on their behalf, including

DEFENDANT MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLTFFS, Master File No. C-02-1486 CW sf-2 124 124

their investment advisors or any other PERSON(S) who has provided or does provide any

advice regarding investments by them or on their behalf.

M. Unless otherwise specified, the applicable period of time covered by these

Interrogatories is fiom January 1,1999, through December 3 1,200 1.

N, Unless specifically defined, all words shall be construed and interpreted

according to ordinary custom, usage, and meaning. Additionally, the terms "and" as well as

"or7' shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the

scope of these Interrogatories any DOCUMENTS or facts that might otherwise be construed

to be outside their scope.

0. To the fullest extent permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), these interrogatories

shall be deemed subject to the duty to supplement, and YOU shall be obligated to change,

supplement, and correct YOUR answers to conform to all available information, including

information as becomes available to YOU after YOU have served YOUR answers to these

interrogatories.

P. If YOU object to any portion or aspect of any interrogatory, provide all

information responsive to the portion, if any, to which YOU do not object.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1 :

IDENTIFY each TRANSACTION for which YOU contend that JDSU improperly

recognized revenue.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

For each TRANSACTION IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 1, state

all facts supporting YOUR contention that JDSU improperly recognized revenue fiom that

TRANSACTION.

DEFENDANT MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLTFFS. Master File No. C-02-1486 CW sf-2124124


For each TRANSACTION IDENTIFIED in YOUR responses to Interrogatory No. 1, state

whether YOU contend that any DEFENDANT knew or was reckless in not knowing that JDSU

improperly recognized revenue from that TRANSACTION.


If you contend that any DEFENDANT knew or was reckless in not knowing that JDSU

improperly recognized revenue fiom any TRANSACTION, state all facts supporting that

contention regarding each TRANSACTION and each DEFENDANT.


IDENTIFY each STATEMENT by any DEFENDANT which you contend misrepresented

JDSU's revenues.


For each STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 5, specify

the dollar amount of the misrepresentation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7;

For each STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 5, state all

facts supporting YOUR contention that the STATEMENT misrepresented JDSU's revenues,

including the precise language of the STATEMENT, the PERSON who made the STATEMENT,

the date the STATEMENT was made, the DOCUMENT or place in which the STATEMENT was

made, and the reason why YOU contend the STATEMENT misrepresented JDSU's revenues.


For each STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 5 , state

whether YOU contend that any DEFENDANT knew or was reckless in not knowing that the

STATEMENT misrepresented JDSU's revenues.


If you contend that any DEFENDANT knew or was reckless in not knowing that any

STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 5 misrepresented JDSU's

DEFENDANT MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLTFFS. Master File No. C-02-1486 CW 4 sf-2 124 I24

revenues, state all facts supporting that contention regarding each DEFENDANT and each

STATEMENT.


IDENTIFY each STATEMENT by any DEFENDANT which you contend misrepresented

the value of JDSU's inventory.


For each STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 10, state

all facts supporting YOUR contention that the STATEMENT misrepresented the value of JDSU's

inventory, including the precise language of the STATEMENT, the PERSON who made the

STATEMENT, the date the STATEMENT was made, the place or DOCUMENT in which the

STATEMENT was made, and the reason why YOU contend the STATEMENT misrepresented

the value of JDSU's inventory.


For each STATEMENT identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 10, specify the

dollar amount of the misrepresentation.


For each STATEMENT identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 10, state

whether YOU contend that any DEFENDANT knew or was reckless in not knowing that the

STATEMENT misrepresented the value of JDSU's inventory.



STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 10 misrepresented the

value of JDSU's inventory, state all facts supporting that contention regarding each

DEFENDANT and each STATEMENT.


IDENTIFY each STATEMENT by any DEFENDANT which YOU contend

misrepresented the value of JDSU's goodwill.



For each STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 15, state

all facts supporting YOUR contention that the STATEMENT misrepresented the value of JDSU7s

goodwill, including the precise language of the STATEMENT, the PERSON who made the

STATEMENT, the date the STATEMENT was made, the place or DOCUMENT in which the

STATEMENT was made, and the reason why YOU contend the STATEMENT misrepresented

the value of JDSU's goodwill.


For each STATEMENT identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 15, specify the

doIlar mount of the misrepresentation.


For each STATEMENT identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 15, state

whether YOU contend that any DEFENDANT knew or was reckIess in not knowing that the

STATEMENT misrepresented the value of JDSU's goodwill.



STATEMENT IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 15 misrepresented the

value of JDSU7s goodwill, state all facts supporting that contention regarding each DEFENDANT

and each STATEMENT



State whether YOU contend that YOU suffered a loss caused by any DEFENDANT'S

misrepresentation regarding JDSU's revenues.


If YOU contend that YOU sufCered a loss caused by a DEFENDANT'S misrepresentation

of JDSU's revenues, state all facts supporting that contention, including the date on which YOU

contend YOU suffered the loss.



misrepresentation regarding the value of JDSU's inventory.


If YOU contend that YOU suffered a loss caused by a DEFENDANT'S misrepresentation

regarding the value of JDSU's inventory, state all facts supporting that contention, including the

date on which YOU contend YOU suffered the loss.



misrepresentation regarding the value of JDSU's goodwill.

INTEMOGATORY NO. 25:

If YOU contend that YOU suffered a loss caused by a DEFENDANT'S misrepresentation

regarding the value of JDSU's goodwill, state all facts supporting that contention, including the

date on which YOU contend YOU suffered the loss.

Dated: May 5,2006 JORDAN ETH TERRI GARLAND PHILIP T. BESIROF MORlUSON & FOERSTER LLP

By: Philip T. Besirof

Attorneys for the JDSU Defendants

DEFENDANT MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLTFFS. Master File No. C-02-1486 CW sf-2124124

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (BAR NO. 34097) JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121 61 7) TERRJ GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563) PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 1 85053) MORRISON & FOERSTERLLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 941 05-2482 Telephone: (4 15) 268-7000 Facsimile: (4 15) 268-7522

Attorneys for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles J. Abbe



OAKLAND DIVISION


This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS

Master File No. (2-02- I486 CW

PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE Master File No. C-02-1486 CW sf-2125155

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, whose address

is 425 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-2482. 1 am not a party to the within cause,

and I am over the age of eighteen years.

I further declare that on May 5,2006, I served a copy of;

DEFENDANT ANTHONY R MULLER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS

BY PERSONAL SERVICE [Code Civ. Proc sec. lo l l ] by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below by sending true and correct copies of those documents to SpeciaIized Legal Services with appropriate instructions to cause service to be properly effectuated.

The document(s) described above will be hand delivered by Specialized Legal Services to the document's addressee (or left with an employee or person in charge of the addressee's office) on May 5,2006.

Anthony J. Harwood Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5563

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Matthew B. Kaplan Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005

Michael Goldberg Glancy Binkow & Goldbexg LLP 1801 Ave. of the Stars Suite 3 1 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Mark Labaton Kreindler & Kreindler LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard LOS Angeles, CA 900 1 7



Christopher T. Heffelfinger Attorneys for Plaintiffs Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street, Suite 2 100 San Francisco, CA 94 104-2205


Howard S. Caro Heller Ehrman LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 941 04

Attorneys for Kevin Kalkhoven

Christopher T. Heffelfinger Attorneys for Plaintiffs Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street, Suite 2 100 San Francisco, CA 941 04-2205

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cdifomia that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at San Francisco, California, this 5th day of May, 2006.


Exhibit B

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 714 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sf-2241243

JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617) TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563) PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 185053) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 [email protected]




OAKLAND DIVISION


This Document Relates To: All Actions

Master File No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL)

EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF PHILIP T. BESIROF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES

(FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 79-5)

Date: January 23, 2007 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: E, 15th Floor Before: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sf-2241243

MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION

Regarding: Exhibit B Declaration of Philip T. Besirof in Support of Motion to Compel

Further Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories

This filing is in paper or physical form only, and is being maintained in the case file in the Clerk’s office. If you are a participant in this case, this filing will be served in hard-copy shortly. For information on retrieving this filing directly from the court, please see the court’s main web site at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov under Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

This filing was not e-filed for the following reason(s):

_____ Voluminous Document (PDF file size larger than the efiling system allows)

_____ Unable to Scan Documents

_____ Physical Object (description): [insert description of object here]

_____ Non Graphical/Textual Computer File (audio, video, etc.) on CD or other media.

__X__ Item Under Seal

_____ Conformance with the Judicial Conference Privacy Policy (General Order 53.)

_____ Other (description): [insert description here]

Dated: December 12, 2006

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By /s/ Philip T. Besirof

Philip T. Besirof



http://www.cand.uscourts.gov

Exhibit C


425 W ? I " STTU XI' MORRISON a FOBRSTC:H 1.1.~

M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R SAN I W C I X O NILW Y O R K , S A N IVKANCISCO,

CAIdIt:ORNIA 94105-2482 l.OS ANGC.LBS, PA1.0 Al.'I'O. S A N D l l i G O , W A S I I I N G T U N , D . C .

'IlHdRPI40NI',: 415.268.7000 l>I'.NVI'.R, N O R T f l B R N V IRC; IN IA , O R A N G E COI IN I 'Y , SACRAMEN'I 'O,

I'ACSIMUUE: 415.268.7522 WALNLI'T CRI!BK, C I I N T V R Y r:171'

WWW.MOI"O.COM I'CIKYO, l . O N D O N , B B I J I N G , S H A N O I I A I , l l O N ( i K O N G , SINGAI'ORI! , RRLtSSIiLS

October 24,2006 Writer's Direct Contact 415.268.6145 [email protected]

Michael Stocker, Esq. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5563

Re: In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-1486 CW

Dear Michael:

This letter summarizes the topics we discussed during yesterday's meet-and-confer session, including the various agreements reached.

~ ~ d a t i a ~ / ~ u ~ ~ l e m e n ~ n g Disclosures and Discovery Responses

The parties agreed that November 3,2006 is the deadline for complying with Judge Laporte's standing order regarding correcting and supplementing initial disclosures and discovery responses.

Responses to Straus's, Abbe's and Muller's Interrogatories

Waiver of Obiections. As discussed yesterday, it is JDSU's position that Plaintiffs waived their objections with respect to the interrogatories that Plaintiffs failed to respond to on September 29,2006 (Abbe Interrogatory Nos. 1-4, 10- 1 5, 1 7, 19,20; Straus Interrogatory , Nos. 1-1 1, 13). We understand that Plaintiffs disagree with this position, but as our letter of September 29 confirms, JDSU never agreed to the extensions of time to respond to discovery that Plaintiffs set forth in their September 21. letter. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are clear that a party's untimely response results in a waiver of objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)14).

We disagree with the statement you made yesterday that JDSU attempted to "burn" Plaintiffs because JDSU notified Plaintiffs that it would not agree to the extensions on September 29, the day Plaintiffs' responses were due. First, the September 29 letter was the third time JDSU communicated to Plaintiffs that it would not agree to a one-month extension, not the first. JDSU told Plaintiffs during a meet-and-confer on September 19 that a one-month


M O R R I S O N P O E R S T E R

Michael Stocker, Esq. October 24,2006 Page Two

extension was unacceptable, and JDSU confirmed that position in a September 20 letter. Second, Plaintiffs had an obligation either to obtain an agreement on an extension or to respond to the interrogatories on the date mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs did neither. The fact that Plaintiffs sent a letter to JDSU unilaterally setting response deadlines did not change that fundamental obligation. The proposed extensions in Plaintiffs' September 21 letter were not effective unless and until agreed upon by the parties. Third, although Plaintiffs now claim that JDSU attempted to "bum" them by rejecting the proposed extensions in the September 29 letter (albeit for the third time), the record shows that Plaintiffs took no action when it received that letter. Indeed, Plaintiffs have been on notice for more than three weeks that its responses are late, yet Plaintiffs have never attempted to discuss the response deadline or the September 29 letter with JDSU. Furthermore, in the intervening weeks Plaintiffs did not serve responses to any of the outstanding interrogatories even though Plaintiffs knew they had no extension. In summary, there is no question that Plaintiffs' responses are late, that the parties never agreed to an extension, and that by operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure any objections to the untimely responses are waived.'

Plaintiffs agreed yesterday to provide responses to the unanswered interrogatories no later than October 28,2006.

Simed CODY. Plaintiffs' Responses to Abbe's First Set of Interrogatories were not signed by an attorney. Plaintiffs agreed to serve a signed copy no later than October 28.

Muller Interroaatorv Nos. 1 & 2. In response to Interrogatory No. 1, which required Plaintiffs to identify each transaction for which Plaintiffs contend JDSU improperly recognized revenue, Plaintiffs identified four specific transactions. Interrogatory No. 2 requested that Plaintiffs state all facts supporting their contention that JDSU improperly recognized revenue from each of these transactions. We noted yesterday that Plaintiffs' response to Interrogatory No. 2 appears to list examples rather than provide a complete statement of all known facts, as required by the interrogatory. You assured us, however, that the response includes all facts currently known to Plaintiffs. You stated that the response would only be incomplete to the extent that either (I) Plaintiffs had not yet received information in discovery or (2) Plaintiffs had received information so recently that they had not had an opportunity to review it. With respect to the second of these categories, we are assuming that, as concerns JDSU's production, Plaintiffs are referring onIy to the production made on September 29,2006. Please let us know if that is not correct.

' At yesterday's meeting, Plaintiffs did not raise the related topic of their failure to respond timely to JDSU's second set of requests for admissions. Ow September 20 and September 29 letters confirm that JDSU did not agree to extend Plaintiffs' time to respond to those requests, and as noted in our letter of October 20, the requests are deemed admitted.


M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R

Michael Stocker, Esq. October 24,2006 Page Three

In addition, Plaintiffs7 response to Interrogatory No. 2 is insufficient because some of the cited evidence is not specifically tied to the transactions identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1. For example, Plaintiffs fail to identify the transaction for which the Lucent revenue recognition allegation and evidence is relevant. If the facts concerning Lucent relate to one of the specified transactions, Plaintiffs must state which one. If the facts concerning Lucent relate to a different transaction, Plaintiffs must identify it and supplement their response to Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiffs also fail to identify the transaction for which the E-TEK manipulation of revenue recognition allegation and Alcatel shipment is relevant. We requested that Plaintiffs correct this deficiency by tying the evidence to one of the specifically alleged transactions, and you agreed to do so in a supplemental response no later than October 28.

Muller Interro~atory Nos. 3 & 4. With regard to JDSU, Plaintiffs assert only that "JDSU was aware of the improper nature of the transactions set out in plaintiffs' response to interrogatory number 1. These transactions violate generally accepted accounting principles, and were identified to JDSU by its auditors." This response is incomplete, as the request asks for all facts supporting Plaintiffs' contention. Plaintiffs are required to supplement their response with appropriate facts supportive of their contention that JDSU knew or was reckless in not knowing that certain transactions involved improperly recognized revenue.

With regard to Anthony Muller, Plaintiffs' response merely cites the following documents: EY 014352, JDSU 0202054 at 0202055, EY 014407 at EY 014408, and JDSU 0033 139.

Yesterday we asked Plaintiffs to supplement these responses with complete answers, as well as to identify which of the four specified transactions you contend Mufler knew or was reckless in not knowing involved improperly recognized revenue. You agreed to review these responses and to supplement them with any more specific information in Plaintiffs' possession no later than October 28.

Muller Interro~atow No. 5. Plaintiffs7 response to this interrogatory fails to identify specific statements that you contend misrepresent JDSU's revenues. You agreed to supplement this response no later than October 28 with the specific statements that allegedly misrepresent JDSU's revenues.

Muller Interroaatow No. 6. Plaintiffs' response to this interrogatory is not responsive and simply states that Plaintiffs "will supplement their response to this interrogatory during the period of expert discovery." At yesterday's meeting, we asked you to provide us with a specific deadline for the supplementation of this interrogatory. Although you were not able to provide us a deadline, you agreed to consult with your experts and inform us of the anticipated deadline for supplementing this response by October 28.


M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R

Michael Stocker, Esq. October 24,2006 Page Four

Muller Interro~atorv No. 7. Similarly, Plaintiffs did not give a sufficient response to this interrogatory, again stating the need to supplement after expert discovery. During yesterday's meeting, you agreed to supplement this response with the requested information no later than October 28.

Muller Interrogatow No. 9. Plaintiffs also failed to give a substantive response to this interrogatory, which requests a statement of all facts supporting Plaintiffs' contention that any Defendant knew or was reckless in not knowing that a particular statement misrepresented JDSU's revenues. You agreed to supplement this response no later than October 28 with all facts supporting Plaintiffs' contention that any Defendant knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of the statements, requested in Interrogatory No. 5, misrepresented JDSU's revenues.

Muller Interro~atorv No. 10fAbbe Interrogatorv No. 5. We discussed two deficiencies relating to these interrogatories. First, Plaintiffs' responses merely provide a list of public filings and do not actually identify specific misrepresentations. Second, preceding the list of public filings, Plaintiffs add the qualifying phrase "at least." This language implies that there are additional statements. You confirmed that Plaintiffs have identified a11 of the statements that they contend contain misrepresentations. You also agreed to supplement these responses no later than October 28 by identifying the specific statements contained in the filings, as the interrogatories require you to do.

Muller Interrogatory No. 1 l/Abbey Interrogatory No. 6. As we discussed, these interrogatories have two main problems. First, although Plaintiffs provide lengthy responses, they are insufficient because they fail to provide the specific information sought by the requests. Plaintiffs must supplement their responses to provide each of the items requested with respect to each of the alleged misstatements regarding inventory. Second, we asked far your assurance that the responses contain all facts known to Plaintiffs. You agreed to review these responses and supplement them with the specific information that the interrogatories request, no later than October 28. With respect to the completeness of the responses, you provided us with the same assurance as discussed above with respect to Muller Interrogatory

.No. 2.

Muller Interro~atorv No. 12lAbbe Interro~atorv No. 7. These interrogatories require Plaintiffs to specify the dollar amount of each statement that Plaintiffs contend contains a misrepresentation regarding JDSU's inventory. Plaintiffs' responses are insufficient because they fail to quantify the dollar amount for each of the statements identified. As with Muller Interrogatory No. 6, you agreed to consult with your experts and inform us of the anticipated deadline for supplementing this response by October 28.

Muller Interrogatory No. 14/Abbe Interrogatory No, 9. We asked for your assurance that the responses contain all facts known to Plaintiffs. You provided us with the same assurance as


M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R I Michael Stocker, Esq. October 24,2006 Page Five

discussed above with respect to Muller Interrogatory No. 2, and you agreed to supplement with any additional information no later than October 28.

Muller Interrogatory No. 15. Plaintiffs' response to Interrogatory No. 15 lists several public filings; however, preceding this list Plaintiffs add the qualifying phrase "at least." Again, you assured us that the response includes all of the information known to Plaintiffs and that the list is complete. You also agreed to review this response and supplement it no later than October 28 by identifying the specific statements that Plaintiffs allege misrepresented the value of JDSU's goodwill, as the interrogatory requires you to do.

Muller Interronatorv No. 16. Plaintiffs' response to Interrogatory No. 16 is deficient because it fails to connect the factual. assertions to the specific statements alleged to contain misrepresentations. For example, the response fails to identify any facts supporting Plaintiffs' contention that JDSU's Form S-3 filed October 30,2000, Form S-4 filed February 12,200 1, Form 8-K filed March 23,200 1, Form 10-Q dated March 3 1,200 1, and Form 10-Q dated May 11,2001 misrepresented the value of JDSU's goodwill. If Plaintiffs are aware of any additional facts to support their contention, they are required to supplement. You agreed to review this response and to provide any supplement no later than October 28.

Muller Interrogatory No. 17. Plaintiffs provide no substantive response to Interrogatory No. 17, because they claim it is a matter for expert opinion. The dollar amount of the misrepresentation, however, is a factual' issue and should not require expert analysis. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are required to supplement this response. At the meeting, you agreed to review this response and give us your position no later than October 28.

Muller Interrogatory No. 19. We asked for your assurance that this response contains all facts known to Plaintiffs. You provided us with the same assurance as discussed above with respect to Muller Interrogatory No. 2, and you agreed to supplement with any additional information no later than October 28.

Muller Interrogatorv Nos. 20.21.23 & 25. These interrogatories request that Plaintiffs state whether they contend they suffered a loss caused by any misrepresentation regarding JDSU's revenues (Interrogatory No. 20) and all facts supporting any contention that they suffered a loss by any misrepresentations concerning the accounting for revenues, inventory, and goodwill (Interrogatory Nos. 21,23 and 25). Plaintiffs served only objections. You agreed to provide us with substantive responses to these interrogatories, including all responsive facts known to Plaintiffs, no later than October 28.


M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R I Michael Stocker, Esq. October 24,2006 Page Six

JDSU's Second Request for Production of Documents

Request Nos. 1 & 2. You confirmed that Plaintiffs' recent production of tapes and transcripts is a full production in response to Request Nos. 1 and 2 and, that Plaintiffs are not withholding any additional material based on the objections.

Request No. 3. You agreed to get back to us by October 28 with dates on which we can inspect the documents described in Request No. 3 (the "plain brown envelope" described in Barbara J. Hart's April 14,2004 declaration and its contents).

Jeff Nguyen and Matthew Voicheck Depositions

As discussed yesterday, two of Plaintiffs' confidential witnesses that Defendants properly subpoenaed, Jeff Nguyen and Matthew Voicheck, did not show up for their depositions. We asked you to let us know whether Plaintiffs intend to use testimony or evidence fiom these witnesses at any time to support their case. We informed you that if you are not going to use evidence from these witnesses, we will not go to the expense and inconvenience of moving to compel andlor seeking contempt against these individuals. You agreed to get back to us on this point by the end of the day on Friday, October 27.

Updating of Interrogatories Related to Confidential Witnesses

We asked that Plaintiffs pay particular attention to the interrogatories listing confidential witnesses as support when supplementing and correcting responses. (See, e.g., Lead Plaintiffs Responses to JDSU's First Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 25,30, 3 1 and 33, and supplemental responses.) During the depositions, the confidential witnesses have repudiated the allegations attributed to them in your complaint. To the extent Plaintiffs have evidence from other communications with the confidential witnesses that support Plaintiffs' claims, those communications should have been listed in the chart you provided when supplementing your response to Interrogatory No. 25. This chart does not list any evidence of communications for 19 of the confidential witnesses.

We look forward to receiving the responses, supplemental responses, and other information that Plaintiffs have agreed to provide.

Sincerely, >- Stuart Plunkett

cc: Howard Caro, Esq.


Exhibit D


L A B A I U N SUCHAHUW LLP

Labaton

October 27,2006

VIA FACSIMILE

Philip T. Besirof; Esq. Stuart Plunkett, Esq. Morrison & Foerstel- 425 Market Strtcl San Francisco, California 941 05-2482

Re: JDS Uniphise Corporation Securities Litigation 02- 1486 CW (EDL)

Gentlemen:

We have received Stuart Plunkctt's letter of October 24,2006, We disagree with his recollection of certain matters discussed during the Octobcr 23,2006 conference call, and further disagree with positions defendants have taken with respect to discovery deadlines. I will address the points set out in Mr. Plunkett's letter seriatim. FinaHy, Plaintiffs will need a sho~t further extension of certain of the responses discussed in the October 23,2006 conference call.

U~datindsupulementin~ Disclosures and Discoverv Res~onses

While we agreed during the conference call that Novrmber 3,2006 should be the deadlinc for complying with Judge Liporte's standing order repding collecting and supplemmting initial disclosures and discovery responses, we also noted that, in light of the fact that both document production and depositions are still ongoing, further supplementation of discovery responses aid disclosures will need to be made on a rolling basis.

Indeed, as defendants arc aware, they originally promised to complete their document production in January 2006, them in March, and then in August. Now, ten months latex, lhey still have not completed their production. Plaintiffs first servcd their document request in February 2005, so defendants have had 20 months to complete their document production and still have not done so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will be obliged to continue to review and analyze documents &or November 3,2006, and reserve their risht to supplement their disclosures and responses as required under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 26(e).

Resoonses to the htem;itories or Straus. Abbe, and Mull er and to Reauests for Admission

Plaintiffs disagree with your suggestion that they have waived objections to the intemgatories of Straus, Muller, and Abbe by relying upon the agreement of JDSU's counsel to permit an


10 /27 /2006 1 5 : 1 6 F A X 12128180477 L A B A T C I N SUCHAHUW LLY

October 27,2006 Page 2

extension of the discovery deadline for the discovery propounded .by defendants. Plaintifis similarly disagree that the requests for admission issued by defendants should be deemed admilred in light of Plaintiffs' reliance on the same agreement.

tn a conference call on September 19,2006, ten days bcfore the then-scheduled deadline for responses to the interrogatories and requests for admission, defendants stated that they would accede to a reasonable extension of the time for Plaintiffs to respond to their lengthy and burdensome requests. The parties agreed that some requests should be responded to by the September 29,2006 deadline, some requests in the weeks following, md some requests still later.

In a letter d ~ t e d September 20,2006, you reiterated your agreement to a reasonable extension o f time, but suggested that a one month extension of time would limit your ability to conduct certain depositions, and stafed that "there were certain interrogatories that plaintiffs could respond to with less than a one month extmsion." Nowhere in this letter do you state that you would refuse a one month extension as to any intcrrogatory. We agreed to review the inlcnogatories to determine whether there were some requests that could be answered 011 a more expedited basis, and to submit proposed dates for responses.

Plaintiffs provided this proposal the following day on September 21,2006. In their proposal, Plaintiffs suggested, consistent with defendants' letter of September 20, that they would respond to some interrogatories by rhe then-current deadline, September 29,2006, to some on October 29, 2006, and to others at the close of expert discovery. Plair~tiffs proposed that they would respond to the rcquests for admission on October 29,2006. Plaintiffs made no request for a "blanket one month extension." Indeed, on September 29,2006, consistent with their letter of September 20,2006, Plaintiffs provided lengthy rcsponses to certain interrogatories propounded by Abbe and Straus,

Defendants made no counter proposal, and did not communicate any disagreement to Plaintiffs until the day Plaintifls ' responses were due. On that day, September 29,2006, Defendants stated tha~ they did not agree to the extension ser out a week oarliw.

In light of this history, your letter of October 24 misstates key facts. YOU repeatedly urge that, prior 10 the expiration of the September 29,2006 deadline for responses, JDS U hod twice informed Plaintiffs that it would not agree to a one month extension. This is mistaken, At both the September 19,2006 meet-and-confer and in its September 20,2006 order, JDSU stated merely that it expected that som! requests could be responded to in less than a month. You further misrepresent that Plaintiffs took no action when they received your letter of September 29,2006, reneging on your earlicr agreement. In fact, Plaintiffs responded five days later with a letter discussing the issue.

Labaton Sucharow


l&g u v v / u v *

October 27,2006 Page 3

Plaintiffs are making diligent efforts to respond to defendants' voluminous requests. Although we hoped to provide a complete response on October 28,2006, it has become apparent that lesrimony in depositions taken this week is relevant to dcfendar.ltsl requests and will need to bc included to provide the most comprehensive response possible . Accordingly, we will provide responses as follows:

Straus Interrogatories on October 30,2006.

Abbe Interrogatories by November 6,2006.

Requests for Admission by November 6,2006.

We trust chat, in light of the additional ten months defendants have taken to respond to Plaintiffs' document requests, they will understand the need for this short additional extension of time.

Tn addition, Plaintiffs have a p e d to review their cwrent responses to inlerrogatories propounded by defendant Tony Muller, and lo provide any necessary supplemental responses. With respect Lo responses that do not call for expert analysis, we anticipate that we will be able to complete our ~eview by November 14,2006, With respect to those requests that will call for expert analysis, we have concluded that we will be able to provide you with responses at close of expert discovery.

As to the depositions of Jeff Nguyen and Matthew Voichck, we are lulablc at this time to slipulatc that we will not use testimony or evidence from these witncsscs to support our case-

Mike Stocker

cc: Howard Caro, Esq.

Lb"B" Suc a r m


Exhibit E

MORRISON425 MARKET STREET

FOE RSTE R SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIA 94105-2482

TELEPHONE : 415.268 .7000

FACSIMILE : 415 .268.7522

WW W .MOFO.CO M

December 5, 2006

Telefacsimile : (212) 818-0477

Michael Stocker, Esq .Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP100 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10017-5563

MORRISON & FOERSTER LL P

NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,

LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO ,

SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D .C .

DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,

ORANGE COUNTY, SACRAMENTO,

WALNUT CREEK, CENTURY CITY

TOKYO, LONDON, BEIJING,

SHANGHAI, HONG KONG,

SINGAPORE, BRUSSEL S

Writer's Direct Contact

415 .268 .6145SPlunkett@mofo .com

Re : In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No . 02-1486 C W

Dear Michael :

I write concerning Plaintiffs' responses to Defendant Anthony Muller's First Set ofInterrogatories . We met and conferred with Plaintiffs regarding the responses on October 23,2006. The substance of that discussion, including Plaintiffs' agreement to' supplement theirresponses, is outlined in my letter of October 24 . To date, Plaintiffs have not supplementedtheir responses or otherwise responded regarding the substance of the meet and confer . Yourletter of October 27 states only that Plaintiffs would review the responses by November 14and provide any supplement thereafter.

Accordingly, we consider our meet and confer obligation with respect to these interrogatoryresponses complete . We intend to file a motion to compel additional responses on December12 .

Sincerely ,

, ,)(t~ ;,o" &/,,,Stuart Plunkett

cc: Howard Caro, Esq .

sf-2236277

Exhibit F

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (BAR NO. 34097)JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617)TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563)ALISON M. TUCHER (BAR NO. 171363)RAYMOND M. HASU (BAR NO. 200058)MORRISON & FOERSTER L425 Market StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-2482Telephone : (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation,Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles J . Abbe


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A

OAKLAND DIVISION

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONSECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: All Actions


JDSU'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO LEADPLAINTIFF CONNECTICUTRETIREMENT PLANS ANDTRUST FUNDS

PROPOUNDING PARTIES : Defendant JDS Uniphase Corporation

RESPONDING PARTIES : Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans andTrust Funds

SET NUMBER: One

JDSU's FIRST SET op iNTERROCATO ITo LEAD PL7F. CONN. R.eT. PLANS AND TRusr FUNDSsf-1862010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO LEAD PLAINTIFF CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS :

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you are hereby requested to

answer, fully and under oath, each of the Interrogatories set forth below by May 9, 2005 .

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTION S

A. "COMMUNICATION(S)" means any transmission or exchange of

inf~on , opinions , or thoughts, whether orally, in writing, or otherwise, including but not

limited to reports, conversations, meetings, letters, notes, and telegraphic, facsimile, or

computer-assisted electronic messages .

B. "COMPLAINT" means the Second Amended Consolidated Class Actio n

Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on January 9, 2004, by Lead

Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds .

C. "JDSU' means JDS Uniphase Corporation and all present and former officers,

directors, employees , agents , representatives, and all other persons or entities acting on

behalf of JDS Uniphase Corporation.

D. "DEFENDANT(S)" means any or all of the defendants in this action : JDSU,

Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, Charles J. Abbe, and Kevin Kalkhoven and any present or

former employees, agents, independent contractors, attorneys, or other PERSONS or entities

acting on their behalf.

E. "DOCUMENT" or ' DOCUMENTS" means any "writings," "recordings," or

"photographs" as those terms are defined by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and

case law, including materials stored electronically or electromagnetically (such as electronic

mail), and any drafts, alterations, modifications, and amendments of those writings ,

recordings, photographs, or materials.

F. "HEDGE" as used in this Request for Production of Documents means any

investment which was expected to, or in fact did, reduce the risk of any adverse movements

of the price of JDSU SECURUTIES by taking an offsetting position in another SECURITY

or SECURITIES .

JDSU' s FIRST SET OF XNCERRoaATOR1E sTO LEAD PLTF CONN. RET. PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf 1862014

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G. "IDENTIFY" or "IDENTIFICATION when used regarding a PERSON or

entitymeans to state the PERSON's or entity's full name, present or last known busines s

address, present or last known business telephone number, present and former employers or

business affiliations, and present and former job titles and responsibilities .

H. "IDENTIFY" or "IDENTIFICATION when used regarding a DOCUMENT

means to state its formal and informal title(s), subject matter or nature, date(s) of preparation,

date(s) of use, and an IDENTIFICATION of the PERSON( S) who signed it or under whose

name the DOCUMENT was issued, the author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) of the

DOCUMENT, and its present or last known custodian .

I. "IDENTIFY" when used regarding a COMMUNICATION means to state the

date each COMMUNICATION was made, the location (by city and state) where each

COMMUNICATION was made, the date and location (by city and state) YOU beard or

became aware of the COMMUNICATION, the nature and substance of each

COMMUNICATION, an IDENTIFICATION of each PERSON who participated in or heard

any part of each COMMUNICATION, an IDENTIFICATION of each DOCUMENT that

recorded, summarized, discussed, or referred to each COMMUNICATION, and an

IDENTIFICATION of each DOCUMENT' s custodian.

J. "IDENTIFY" when used regarding a SECURITY means to describe each

purchase, sale, or transaction in the SECURITY including the location (by city and state) of

each purchase, sale, or transaction, the date of each purchase , sale, or transaction, the amount

or quantity and price of each purchase , sale, or transaction, and an IDENTIFICATION of any

PERSON or entity participating in each purchase, sale, or transaction .

K. "PERSON(S)" includes, without limitation, individuals, corporations,

partnerships, limited partnerships, unincorporated associations , and all other governmenta l

and non-governmental entities .

L. "CONFIDENTIAL WITNESS" means any PERSON YOU referred to in the

I COMPLAINT as a "Confidential Witness."

JDSU' S FOIST SET Of INTERROGATORIESTo LEAD PLTF. CONN. Rlsr. PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862010

2

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

M. "SECURITY" or "SECURITIES" means any common stock , preferred stock,

debenture, option, or other debt or equity interest, including any derivative interest and any

direct, indirect, legal, or beneficial interest in any limited partnership .

N. "YOU" and "YOUR" mean Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and

Trust Funds, and its present and former officers, directors, fiduciaries, general partners,

limited partners, employees, agents, representatives, accountants, brokers, attorneys,

consultants, advisors, and all other PERSONS or entities acting on its behalf, including its

`investment advisors" as that term is used in the "Investment Policy Statement for the State

of Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds," adopted March 13, 2002, or any other

PERSON who has provided or does provide any advice regarding investments by it or on its

behalf

0. "INVESTMENT FUND(S)" means any of the Combined Investment Funds of

the State of Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds referred to in the "Investmen t

Policy Statement for the State of Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds," adopted

March 13, 2002, or any other fund maintained by YOU or on YOUR behalf.

P . Unless otherwise specified, the applicable period of time covered by thes e

Interrogatories is from January 1,1999, through December 31, 2001 .

Q. Unless specifically defined, all words shall be construed and interpreted

according to ordinary custom, usage, and meaning . Additionally, the terms "and" as well as

"of' shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the

scope of these Interrogatories any DOCUMENTS or facts that might otherwise be construed

to be outside their scope .

R. Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to a DOCUMENT ,

the DOCUMENT maybe attached as an exhibit to the response and referred to in th e

response. If the DOCUMENT has more than one page, the response must refer to the page

and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found .

S. To the fullest extent permitted by Fed . R. Civ . P . 26(e), these interrogato ries

shall be deemed subject to the duty to supplement, and YOU shall be obligated to change,

JDSI 's F IRS ` Sur oFDn O ATORms

To LEAD PLTF. CONN. REF PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862010

3

1'

2

3

4

5 .

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

supplement , and correct YOUR answers to conform to all available information , including

information as becomes available to YOU after YOU have served YOUR answers to these

interrogatories .

T. If YOU object to any portion or aspect of any interrogatory, provide a ll

information responsive to the portion, if any, to which YOU do not object.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO.1 :

IDENTIFY each purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, or other transaction by YOU or

anyone acting on YOUR behalf in any JDSU SECURITIES, including the date and time of the

transaction, the number of shares involved, the price paid for the JDSU SECURITIES, and the

fund and portfolio in which the JDSU SECURITIES were subsequently held and managed.

INTERROGATORY NO.2:

For each transaction in JDSU SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to

Interrogatory No.1, describe all information upon which YOU or anyone acting on YOUR behalf

relied in making that transaction.

INTERROGATORY NO.3:


Interrogatory No . 1, IDENTIFY each PERSON involved in the decision to make the transaction ,

including but not limited to each PERSON who recommended that YOU make the transaction or

provided advice or counsel concerning the transaction, and describe the nature of his or her

involvement.

INTERROGATORY NO.4:


Interrogatory No.1, describe in detail the time and manner in which the transaction was executed,

including the name of the broker involved in the transaction.

JDSU'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIESTO LEAD PLTF. CONN. REF. PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862010

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTERROGATORY NO.5:

IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION that YOU had with any other PERSON

concerning any or all of the transactions in JDSU SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOUR response

to Interrogatory No .1.

INTERROGATORY NO.6:

IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION that YOU had with any other PERSON

concerning JDSU or JDSU SECURITIES, including but not limited to any

COMMUNICATIONS concerning this ac tion.

INTERROGATORY NO.7:

Describe in detail any research or investigation regarding JDSU that YOU conducted, or

that was conducted on YOUR behalf, p rior to each of the transac tions in JDSU SECURITIE S

IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 1, including all of YOUR sources (written

or oral) of information or COMMUNICATIONS about JDSU, when such research or

investigation occurred, and an IDENTIFICATION of any PERSON who assisted in or conducte d

such research or investigation.

INTERROGATORY NO.8:

IDENTIFY each purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, or other transaction by YOU or

anyone acting on YOUR behalf in any SECURITIES, other than JDSU SECURITIES, including

the date and time of the transaction, the number of shares involved, the price paid for the

SECURITIES, and the fund and portfolio in which the SECURITIES were subsequently held and

managed

INTERROGATORY NO.9:

For each transaction in SECURITIES IDEN'T'IFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory

No. 8, describe all information upon which YOU or anyone acting on YOUR behalf relied in

making that transaction .

INTERROGATORY NO . 10 :

Describe in detail any research or investigation conducted by YOU, or others acting on

YOUR behalf, concerning any of the matters alleged in the COMPLAINT.

JDSU' s Fmsr SET OF INTERROGATORMS 5To LEADPL7F . CONN. RE . PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862010

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


For each PERSON IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No . 3, describe in

detail each COMMUNICATION constituting or referring to that person's recommendation, if

any, that YOU make a particular transaction in IDSU SECURITIES .

INTERROGATORY NO . 12:

Describe in detail each INVESTMENT FUND in which assets controlled, held, managed,

or owned by YOU are or have been invested, including but not limited to describing whether the

fund was actively or passively managed, whether the fiend was internally or externally managed,

the manner in which transactions in that fund were executed, and EACH PERSON responsible fo r

investment analysis , advice, recommendations, and decisions related to the fund.

INTERROGATOR' NO .13:

IDENTIFY ANY SECURITIES transactions or positions held by YOU that served as a

HEDGE for YOUR purchase of, or position in, JDSU SECURITIES .

INTERROGATORY NO . 14 *

IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION between YOU and any DEFENDANT.


Describe in detail any calculations YOU, or someone acting on YOUR behalf, made of

the loss or damage YOU allegedly suffered by reason of any matter alleged in the COMPLAINT,

including but not limited to a description of YOUR method of calculation, the date that each of

those calculations were made, and the results of each of those calculations, as well as an

IDENTIFICATION of the PERSON or PERSONS who made each of those calculations .


IDENTIFY any PERSON with knowledge of any or all of the facts stated in response t o

Interrogatory No . 15 .


IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION between YOU and any other PERSON who is a

member of the alleged class YOU claim to represent in this action.

IDSU's FIRST SET of INTE oGATORoTO I EAD PLTF CONN. RE . PANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862014

6

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IISTERROGATORY NO.18:

Describe in detail by full cast name, jurisdiction, type of case, and case number each civil

action, criminal action , arbitration, regulatory proceeding, or administrative proceeding in which

YOU are, have been , or sought to be a party or class member at any time from Janua ry 1,1997 to

the present.


IDENTIFY all steps you have taken to preserve DOCUMENTS relevant to this case,

including the DOCUMENTS requested in JDSU's First Request for the Production of

DOCUMENTS .


Describe in detail any and all legal, business, faYnilial , or social relationships between

YOU and any of the current or former employees or partners of the law firm serving as lead

counsel in this action.


Describe in detail the terms and provisions of any and all agreements with any of YOUR

attorneys of record in this ac tion.


IDENTIFY each and every securities broker-dealer, investment banker, investment

advisor, financial planner , accountant, INVESTMENT FUND manager or advisor, or other

professional who has knowledge of any investments made by YOU or on YOUR behalf at any

time since January 1, 1998 .


IDENTIFY each PERSON designated in YOUR COMPLAINT as a CONFIDENTIA L

W TNESS .

INTERROGATORY NO.24

For each PERSON IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 23 , state the

specific designation YOU used in the COMPLAINT to refer to that PERSON (e.g ., "Confidential

Witness No. 1") .

JDSU's FIRST SET OF INTERkO GATORIEs 7

TO LEAD PLTF. CoNN. PEr. PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTERROGATORY NO . 25 .

For each PERSON IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No . 23, IDENTIFY

each COMMUNICATION by or between YOU and tbat PERSON , including but not limited to

an IDENTIFICATION of each DOCUMENT that recorded, summarize 1, or referred to any of

those COMMUNICATIONS, and an IDENTIFICATION of the custodian of any of those

DOCUMENTS.


State all facts supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 52 of the COMPLAINT that

"[c]ommon questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and Subclasses and

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class and

Subclasses ."



YOU "will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class

and Subclasses" and that YOU do not "have interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the other

members of the Class"

I TTERROGATORY NO. 28 .


YOUR "claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class and Subclasses ."


State all facts supporting YOUR assertion that any DEFENDANT made any of the

statements YOU challenge in the COMPLAINT .

I N'TERROGATORY NO. 31

State all facts supporting YOUR contentions in paragraphs 18-19 and 147-50 of the

COMPLAINT regarding the "Pitre e-mail," including YOUR contention in paragraph 149 of the

COMPLAINT that "the Pitre e-mail confirms the information provided by scores of former JDS

employees described above who stated that demand had slowed down prior to August 2000 and

that JDS management had already taken various steps, including shipping merchandise without

JDSU'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 8TO LEAD PLT£. CONN. REC. PLANS AND TRUST FUNDSsf-1862010

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

oxdas, cutting overtime and reducing shits, and planning a global reorganization of the Company

in reaction to that reduction in demand."

11'I'ERROGATORY NO.31:

State all facts supporting YOUR contentions regarding the ` Rcdbook" in paragraphs 21

and 144-46 of the COMPLAINT, including YOUR contention in paragraph 146 of the

COMPLAINT that "the Redbook team did not want to officially acknowledge the bad news with

respect to demand or sales, and delayed downward revisions of its forecasts as long as ale ."

REUZ9QQAjPRY NO, 32:

State all facts supporting YOUR contention that Kevin Kalkhoven made the statements

attributed to him in the light Reading ar ticle described inp=graph 221 of1he COMPLAINT.


IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any or all of the facts stated in response to

Interrogatory Nos. 26 through 32-

I Dated: A 8, 2005

JDSU sl srSFroPD4m wmTo=in LEADPLTF Co Rnr. Pi A m TVxxr FUN sd-1862010

MELVIN R. GOLDMANJORDAN ETSTERRI GARLANDALISON M. TU(RRAYMOND M. HASUMORRISON & FOERSTER up

By:M.xbm

Attorneys for Defendantms Uniphase Corporation

9

PROOF OF SERVICE2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster U2, whose addres s

is 425 Market Street, San Francisco , California 94105-2482. I am not a party to the within cause,

and I am over the age of eighteen years .

I further declare that on April 8, 2005, I served a copy of :

JDSU'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO LEAD PLAINTIFFCONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUND S

-- and --

JDSU'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO LEADPLAINTIFF CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUND S

BY FACSIMILE [Code Civ. Proc see. 1013(e)] by sending a true copy fromMorrison & Foerster uis facsimile transmission telephone number (212) 468-7900to the fax numbers set forth below. The transmission was reported as complete andwithout error. The transmission report was properly issued by the transmittingfacsimile machine.

I am readily familiar with Morrison & Foerster ms's practice for sending facsimiletransmissions, and know that in the ordinary course of Morrison & Foerster r12'sbusiness practice the documents described above will be transmitted by facsimile onthe same date that they are placed at Morrison & Foerster up for transmission .

0 BY U.S. MAIL [Code Civ. Proc see. 1013(a)] by placing a true copy thereofenclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed asfollows, for collection and mailing at Morrison & Foerster up, 1290 Avenue of theAmericas, New York, New York 10104 in accordance with Morrison & FoersterLu's ordinary business practices .

I am readily familiar with Morrison & Foerster u1's practice for collection andprocessing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, andknow that in the ordinary course of Morrison & Foerster a's business practice thedocuments described above will be deposited with the United States Postal Serviceon the same date that they are placed at Morrison & Foerster w' with postagethereon fully prepaid for collection and mailing .

PROOF OF SERVICE

ny-629868

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY [Code Civ. Proc see. 1013(d)] by placing a truecopy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with delivery fees provided for,addressed as follows, for collection by UPS, at 425 Market Street, San Francisco,California 94105-2482 in accordance with Morrison & Foerster uP's ordinarybusiness practices .

I am readily familiar with Morrison & Foerster u2's practice for collection andprocessing of correspondence for overnight delivery and know that in the ordinarycourse of Morrison & Foerster r re's business practice the document(s) describedabove will be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS ordelivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by UPS to receive documentson the same date that it (they) is are placed at Morrison & Foerster up for collection .

BY PERSONAL SERVICE [Code Civ . Proc sec. 1011] by placing a true copythereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows for collection anddelivery by a member of Morrison & Foerster up, s docketing department, causingpersonal delivery of the documents listed above to the persons at the address setforth below .

I am readily familiar with Morrison & Foerster w's practice for the collection andprocessing of documents for hand delivery and know that in the ordinary course ofMorrison & Foerster ms's business practice the documents described above will betaken from Morrison & Foerster up's docketing department and hand delivered tothe document's addressee (or left with an employee or person in charge of theaddressee's office) on the same date .

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [Code Civ . Proc sec . 1010.6] by electronicallymailing a true and correct copy through Morrison & Foerster Up's electronic mailsystem to the e-mail address(s) set forth below, or as stated on the attached servicelist per agreement in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 .6 .

2PROOF OF SERVICE

11 ny-629868

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jonathan M . Plasse, Esq.Louis Gottlieb, Esq .Barbara HartGoodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP100 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10017-556 3(By Personal Service)


Joseph J . Tabacco, Jr. Attorneys for PlaintiffsChristopher T. HeffelfingerJennifer S . Abrams Fax (415) 433-6382Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &Pucillo425 California Street, Suite 210 0San Francisco, CA 94104-220 5(By Fax and U .S. Mail)

Michael J . Shepard Attorneys for Co-Defendant Kevin Kalkhove nHoward S. CaroHeller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP Fax (415) 772-6268333 Bush StreetSan Francisco, CA 94104-287 8(By Fax and U .S. Mail )

Michael L. CharlsonHeller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP Fax (650) 324-063 8275 Middlefield RoadMenlo Park, CA 94025(By Fax and U .S. Mail, )

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct .

Executed at New York, New York, this 8th day of April, 2005 .

Richard A. Andrews(typed) (signature)

3PROOF OF SERVICE

ny-629868

Exhibit G

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joseph J. Tabacco , Jr. (75484)Christopher T. Heffelfinger (118058)BERMAN DeVALERIO PEAS E

TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO425 California Street, Suite 202 5San Francisco, Califo rn ia 94104-2205Telephone : (415) 433-3200Facsimile : (415) 433-6382

Liaison Counsel for Lead PlaintiffConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Fund s

Barbara J . HartJonathan M. PlasseLouis GottliebLisa Buckser-SchulzDavid J . GoldsmithJon AdamsGOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF

& SUCHAROW LLP100 Park AvenueNew York, New York 10017-5563Telephone: (212) 907-0700Facsimile : (212) 818-0477

Lead Counsel for Lead PlaintiffConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Fund s

[Additional counsel listed below]


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONSECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Applies To : All Actions

Master File No. C 02-1486 CW

CLASS ACTION

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO} JDSU'S FIRST SET OF} INTERROGATORIES

RESPONSES TO JDSU's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lead Plaintiff, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, hereby objects and

responds to JDSU's First Set of Interrogatories to Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans

and Trust Funds as follows :

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1 . Lead Plaintiff objects to any and all interrogato ries to the extent that they call for

the identification or disclosure of any information that is protected by the attorney- client

privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable claim of privilege .

2. Lead Plaintiff objects to the De finitions and Instructions to any and all

interrogatories insofar as they attempt to impose obligations beyond those required by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .

3 . Lead Plaintiff objects to the Definitions and Instructions and to any and al l

interrogatories to the extent that they are unduly vague and burdensome, overly broad or see k

disclosure of facts that are not discoverable .

4. Lead Plaintiff objects to any and all interrogatories to the extent that they see k

I information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculate d

I to lead to discovery of admissible evidence .

5. Lead Plaintiffobjects to the definition of "DEFENDANT(S)" to the extent it

purports to include persons other than the named defendants in this Action and will construe

"DEFENDANT(S)" to mean Jozef Strauss , Anthony R. Muller, Charles J. Abbe, Kevin

I Kalkhoven, JDSU, and any current or former officers or directors of JDSU.

6 . Lead Plaintiff objects to the definition of "YOU" and "YOUR" as overbroad and

unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to impose on Plaintiff an obligation to respond

on behalf of people who are not under Lead Plaintiff's control . Lead Plaintiff will construe

RESPONSES TO JDSU's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

14

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"YOU" and "YOURS" to mean the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, and its

current and former officers, directors, and employees .

7. Lead Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement these Interrogatories as mor e

information becomes available .

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIE S

INTERROGATORY NO .1 :

IDENTIFY each purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, or other transaction by YOU oranyone acting on YOUR behalf in any JDSU SECURITIES, including the date and time of thetransaction , the number of shares involved, the price paid for the JDSU SECURITIES, and thefund and po rtfolio in which the JDSU SECURITIES were subsequently held and managed .

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO . 1 :

Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General Objections . Lead

Plaintiff further objects that the interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome . Subject to

the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that each of its transactions in JDS U

SECURITIES, including the date of the transaction, the number of shares involved and the price

paid for the securities are reflected on LP 00001-LP 00003 which has previously been produced

to JDSU. The identifiers for the funds in which the JDSU SECURITIES were transacted as

reflected on LP 00001- LP 00003 are as follows :

SC2X - AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management

SC2S - Dresdner RCM Global Investors LL C

SC2Y - CitiGroup Asset Management (TIMCO)

SC2Z - BGI Barclays Global Investors, N.A .

SC3Y - JP Morgan Fleming

SC3Z - State Street Global Advisor s

I INTERROGATORY NO . 2:

For each transaction in JDSU SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOUR response toInterrogatory No . 1, describe all information upon which YOU or anyone acting on YOURbehalf relied in making that transaction.

82

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiff further objects that the interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to

the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it did not personally make decisions with

respect to any of its purchases and sales in JDSU SECURITIES . Each of its purchases and sales

of JDSU SECURITIES during the Class Period were made by one of six of Lead Plaintiff's

outside investment managers : AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management, J .P . Morgan

Fleming, BGI Barclays Global Investors, N.A., Dresdner RCM Global Investors LLC, CitiGroup

Asset Management (TIMCO) and State Street Global Advisors . Lead Plaintiff will produce

documents sufficient to identify the investment manager that executed each transaction in JDSU

SECURITIES.

INTERROGATORY NO .3:

For each transaction in JDSU SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOUR response toInterrogatory No. 1, IDENTIFY each PERSON involved in the decision to make the transaction,including but not limited to each PERSON who recommended that YOU make the transaction orprovided advice or counsel concerning the transaction , and describe the nature of his or herinvolvement .

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO .3:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General Objections . Lead

Plaintiff further objects that the interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to

the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it was not personally involved in making any

decisions with respect to transactions in JDSU SECURITIES . Each of its purchases and sales of

JDSU SECURITIES during the Class Period were made by one of six of Lead Plaintiff's outside

investment managers : AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management, J .P. Morgan Fleming,

BGI Barclays Global Investors, N.A., Dresdner RCM Global Investors LLC, CitiGroup Asset

Management (TIMCO) and State Street Global Advisors . Lead Plaintiff will produce documents

sufficient to identify the investment manager that executed each transaction in JDSU

SECURITIES .

3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTERROGATORY NO .4 :

For each transaction in JDSU SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOUR response toInterrogatory No. 1, describe in detail the time and manner in which the transaction wasexecuted, including the name of the broker involved in the transaction .



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is

seeking information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Subject to the above

objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that each of its transactions in JDSU SECURITIES is

reflected in LP 00001-LP 00003 which has previously been produced to JDSU. Moreover, Lead

Plaintiff will produce documents sufficient to identify the investment manager that executed eact

transaction in JDSU SECURITIES .

INTERROGATORY NO.5:

IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION that YOU had with any other PERSONconcerning any or all of the transactions in JDSU SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOURresponse to Interrogatory No . 1 .


Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General Objections .

Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected by the

attorney-client and work product privileges . Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff

responds that it does not recall any non-privileged communications it had with any other

PERSON concerning any or all of its transactions in JDSU SECURITIES beyond conversations

necessary to collect transaction information in connection with this action.

INTERROGATORY NO.6:

IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION that YOU had with any other PERSONconcerning JDSU or JDSU SECURITIES, including but not limited to anyCOMMUNICATIONS concerning this action .

4


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

27


Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome and calling fc

information protected by the attorney-client and work product p rivileges. Subject to the above

objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it has had non-privileged communications with others

concerning JDSU SECURITIES from time to time . Although each communication cannot be

speci fically recalled at this time , many of those communications are reflected in documents that

have been produced in connection with Plaintiffs ' response to JDSU's First Document Request

(LP 00383 - LP 00401) . In addition , Lead Plaintiff has had one or more conversations with

reporters for the Hartford Courant.


Describe in detail any research or investigation regarding JDSU that YOU conducted, orthat was conducted on YOUR behalf, prior to each of the transactions in JDSU SECURITIESIDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No . 1, including all of YOUR sources (writtenor oral) of information or COMMUNICATIONS about JDSU, when such research orinvestigation occurred, and an IDENTIFICATION of any PERSON who assisted in or conductedsuch research or investigation .



Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it did not personally conduct any

research or investigation regarding JDSU . Each of its purchases and sales of JDSU

SECURITIES during the Class Period were made by one of six of Lead Plaintiffs outside

investment managers : AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management, J .P. Morgan Fleming,

BGI Barclays Global Investors, N.A., Dresdner RCM Global Investors LLC, CitiGroup Asset

Management (TIMCO) and State Street Global Advisors . Lead Plaintiff will produce documents

sufficient to identify the investment manager that executed each transaction in JDSU

SECURITIES.

28


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IDENTIFY each purchase , sale, acquisition , transfer, or other transaction by YOU oranyone acting on YOUR behalf in any SECURITIES, other than JDSU SECURITIES , includingthe date and time of the transaction, the number of shares involved, the p rice paid for theSECURITIES, and the fund and po rtfolio in which the SECURITIES were subsequently heldand managed .



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seek s

information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action no r

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence .


For each transaction in SECURITIES IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to InterrogatoryNo. 8, describe al l information upon which YOU or anyone acting on YOUR behalf relied inmaking that transaction.



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seek s

information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this action nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence .


Describe in detail any research or investigation conducted by YOU, or others acting onYOUR behalf, concerning any of the matters alleged in the COMPLAINT.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 :


Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as calling for information protected by the attorney-

client and work product privileges . Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds tha t

the investigation conducted on its behalf by its counsel included a review of the public

6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documents and press releases of JDSU, recordings of analyst conference calls, reports by the

media and securities analysts about JDSU, consultation with accounting experts, and interviews

with more than 50 former JDS employees who worked at JDS facilities throughout the United

States and Canada.


For each PERSON IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No . 3, desc ribe indetail each COMMUNICATION constituting or referring to that person 's recommendation, ifany, that YOU make a part icular transaction in JDSU SECURITIES .



Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it does not recall an y

communications regarding any recommendations of its outside investment managers wit h

to investments in JDSU SECURITIES .


Describe in detail each INVESTMENT FUND in which assets controlled , held, managedor owned by YOU are or have been invested, including but not limited to describing whether thefund was actively or passively managed, whether the fund was inte rnally or externally managed,the manner in which transactions in that fund were executed, and EACH PERSON responsiblefor investment analysis, advice, recommendations , and decisions related to the fund.



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks


reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the above

objections , Lead Plaintiff responds that all of its investments in JDSU SECURITIES were mad e

in funds that were externally managed by one of six of Lead Plaintiff's outside investment

managers : AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management, J .P. Morgan Fleming, BGI

Barclays Global Investors, N .A., Dresdner RCM Global Investors LLC, CitiGroup Asset

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Management (TIMCO) and State Street Global Advisors , State Street Global Advisors is a

passive investment manager, investing in constituents in the S&P 500 Index unless those

constituents do not adhere to the MacB ride p rinciples which deal with fair employment practices

in Northern Ireland. J .P. Morgan Fleming and BGI Barclays Global Investors, N.A. are both

enhanced managers (between passive and active) with their benchmark being the S&P 50 0

Index. AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management and CitiGroup Asset Managemen t

(TIMCO) are both enhanced managers with their benchmark being the Russell 2500 Index .

Dresdner RCM Global Investors LLC is actively managed with its benchmark being the Russel l

2500 Index .


IDENTIFY ANY SECURITIES transactions or positions held by YOU that served as aHEDGE for YOUR purchase of, or position in, JDSU SECURITIES .

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:


Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it is not aware of any securitie s

transactions or positions that served as a hedge for its position in JDSU SECURITIES .


IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION between YOU and any DEFENDANT .

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO . 14:


Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it is not aware of an y

communications between it and any DEFENDANT .


Describe in detail any calculations YOU, or someone acting on YOUR behalf, made ofthe loss or damage YOU allegedly suffered by reason ofany matter alleged in the COMPLAINTincluding but not limited to a description of YOUR method of calculation, the date that each of

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

those calculations were made, and the results of each of those calculations , as well as anIDENTIFICATION of the PERSON or PERSONS who made each of those calculations .



Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as calling for information protected by the work-

product privilege . Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that while it has

worked with a consultant in formulating preliminary damages it has not yet retained an expert to

perform a formal damage analysis suitable to form a basis for testimony at trial . Lead Plaintiff

will produce its formal damage analysis when the parties exchange expert reports .


IDENTIFY any PERSON with knowledge of any or all of the facts stated in response toInterrogatory No . 15 .



Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as calling for information protected by the work-

product privilege . Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that while it has

worked with a consultant in formulating preliminary damages it has not yet retained an expert to

perform a formal damage analysis suitable to form a basis for testimony at trial .


IDENTIFY each COMMUNICATION between YOU and any other PERSON who is amember of the alleged class YOU claim to represent in this action .



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks


reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the above

objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that there were communications between it and other

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

members of the class concerning JDSU. Lead Plaintiffcannot recall these communications at

the present time with the exception of certain e-mail communications which it has already

produced (LP 00383 - LP 00401) .


Describe in detail by full case name, jurisdiction, type of case, and case number each civilaction, criminal action, arbitration, regulatory proceeding, or administrative proceeding in whichYOU are, have been, or sought to be a party or class member at any time from January 1, 1997 tcthe present .



Plaintiff further objects that the interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks

information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff

responds that it has produced a list of cases in which the State of Connecticut Retirement Plans

and Trust Funds served as lead plaintiff (LP 00402) .


IDENTIFY all steps you have taken to preserve DOCUMENTS relevant to this case,including the DOCUMENTS requested in JDSU First Request for the Production ofDOCUMENTS.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO . 19:


Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that it has kept documents relevant t o

this case in the ordinary course of business . Lead Plaintiff has produced its general document

preservation policies . (LP 00403 - LP 00430) .


Describe in detail any and all legal, business, familial, or social relationships betweenYOU and any of the current or former employees or partners of the law firm serving as leadcounsel in this action .

10


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference each ofthe foregoing General Objections . Lead

Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and

seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Subject to the above objections, Lead

Plaintiff responds that it has produced documents related to the selection of Goodkind Labaton

Rudoff & Sucharow LLP as its legal counsel (LP 00058, LP 00314- LP 00382) and that

Goodkind Labaton previously represented Lead Plaintiff in the Waste Management securities

class action litigation .


Describe in detail the terms and provisions of any and all agreements with any of YOURattorneys of record in this action .



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for information

protected by the attorney-client privilege and seeks information that is neither relevant to the

subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence .


IDENTIFY each and every securities broker-dealer , investment banker, investmentadvisor, financial planner, accountant , INVESTMENT FUND manager or advisor , or otherprofessional who has knowledge of any investments made by YOU or on YOUR behalf at anytime since January 1, 1998 .



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks )

information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff

responds that each of its purchases and sales of JDSU SECURITIES du ring the Class Pe riod

were made by one of six of Lead Plaintiff's outside investment m anagers : AXA Rosenberg

Institutional Equity Management, J .P. Morgan Fleming, BGI Barclays Global Investors, N .A.,

Dresdner RCM Global Investors LLC, CitiGroup Asset Management (TIMCO ) and State Street

Global Advisors.


IDENTIFY each PERSON designated in YOUR COMPLAINT as a CONFIDENTIALWITNESS .



Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that the following people were included

as confidential witnesses in the Complaint : Patricia Arle, Tim Bakes, Anthony Bancore, Jr ., Ron

Blackman, Jodi Blanco, Kwong Boey, Diana Bums, Philip Chateauvert, Denise Chau, Bruce

Coleman, Brent Cunningham, Quintana Dalton, Jeff Deault, Jeff Drothler, Manuel Erea, Orlando

Estezo, Henry Fan, Guy Gagnon, Maureen Gainey, Robert Gallagher, Bryan Guckavan, Kelli

Hawkins, Eric Kelly, Sopheap Khieu, Colin Korf, John Lattimer, Roy Lawrence, Deanne

Leisinger, John Libby, Sandra Macika, David Marcellus, Rudolf Marek, Herbert Marone, Janic e

I Namauleg, John Nazari, Manjeet Ner, Jeff Nguyen, Gail Paridis, Sam Quinones, Bert Ramos ,

Patricia Rivette, Eric Sladic, Scott Thomas, Sandra Thompson, Tai Ton, Janusz Trondowski ,

Mark Tybor, Matt Voichek, Dan Welch, and John Wertherill .


For each PERSON IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 23, state thespecific designation YOU used in the COMPLAINT to refer to that PERSON (e.g.,"Confidential Witness No . I') .

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as seeking information protected by the work-

product privilege .


For each PERSON IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 23, IDENTIFYeach COMMUNICATION by or between YOU and that PERSON, including but not limited toan IDENTIFICATION of each DOCUMENT that recorded, summarized, or referred to any ofthose COMMUNICATIONS, and an IDENTIFICATION of the custodian of any of thoseDOCUMENTS.



Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as seeking information protected by the work-

product privilege .


State all facts support ing YOUR contention in paragraph 52 of the COMPLAINT that"[c]ommon questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and Subclasses andpredominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class an dSubclasses . "



Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is premature and that the issues on class

certification will be addressed more fully in Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification .

Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff states that all of the factual allegations in the

Complaint and the legal issues concerning whether Defendants violated the federal securities

laws are common to the Class .

13


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

State all facts supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 53 of the COMPLAINT thatYOU "will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Classand Subclasses" and that YOU do not "have interests antagonistic to, or in con flict with, theother members of the Class."




certification will be addressed more fully in Lead Plaintiffs motion for class certification .

Subject to the above objections , Lead Plaintiff states that it will fairly and adequately represent

and protect the members of the Class and Subclasses in that it is vigorously pursuing its claims

against Defendants, it has lost tens of millions of dollars in JDSU Secu rities and it has previous]

done exemplary work as a class representative in the Waste Management securities class action.

Lead Plaintiff is unaware of any interests antagonistic to, or in con fl ict with, the other members

of the Class .


State all facts suppo rting YOUR contention in paragraph 54 of the COMPLAINT thatYOUR "claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class and Subclasses ."

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 28 :



certification will be addressed more fully in Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification .

Subject to the above objections, Lead Plaintiff states that it is pursuing the same claims as those

possessed by the members of the Class .


State all facts supporting YOUR assertion that any DEFENDANT made any of thestatements YOU challenge in the COMPLAINT .

14


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is premature in that it is being interposed before

Lead Plaintiff has had the opportunity to engage in a subst antive document review or take any

deposi tions . Subject to the above objections Lead Plaintiff responds that the statement s

attributed to Defendants in the Complaint were garnered from the JDSU' s SEC fi lings, press

releases and analyst conference cal ls and from statements made to con fidential witnesses and

statements repo rted by the news media and attributed to Defendants .


State all facts suppo rting YOUR contentions in paragraphs 18-19 and 147-50 of theCOMPLAINT regarding the "Pitre e-mail," including YOUR contention in paragraph 149 of theCOMPLAINT that "the Pitre e-mail confirms the information provided by scores of former JDSemployees described above who stated that demand had slowed down p rior to August 2000 andthat JDS management had already taken various steps , including shipping merchandise withoutorders, cutt ing overt ime and reducing shifts, and planning a global reorganization of theCompany in reaction to that reduction in demand ."




Lead Plaintiff has had the opportunity to engage in a substantive document review or take any

depositions . Subject to the above objections Lead Plaintiff responds that the Pitre e-mail speaks

for itself and further responds that the Pitre e-mail's reference to "demand changes" is consister

with the accounts of the confidential witnesses referred to in the Complaint .


State all facts suppo rting YOUR contentions regarding the "Redbook" in paragraphs 21and 144-46 of the COMPLAINT, including YOUR contention in paragraph 146 of theCOMPLAINT that "the Redbook team did not want to officially acknowledge the bad news withrespect to demand or sales, and delayed downward revisions of its forecasts as long as possible."

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.31 :




depositions . Subject to the above objections Lead Plaintiff responds that the facts pled in the

Complaint with respect to the "Redbook" are supported by Confidential Witnesses 45 and 46 and

is consistent with information provided by other confidential witnesses that are referred to in the

Complaint .


State all facts supporting YOUR contention that Kevin Kalkhoven made the statementsattributed to him in the Light Reading article described in paragraph 221 of the COMPLAINT .





depositions . Subject to the above objections Lead Plaintiff responds that the Light Reading

Article described in paragraph 221 of the Complaint attributes the statements therein to Kevin

Kalkhoven .


IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any or all of the facts stated in response toInterrogatory Nos. 26 through 32 .

I RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33:


Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is premature in that it is being interposed befor e

Lead Plaintiff has had the opportunity to engage in a substantive document review or take an y

depositions . Subject to the above objections Lead Plaintiff responds that in addition to Lead

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff and its attorneys, the facts stated in response to Interrogatory Nos . 26 through 32 are

also known to several of the Confidential Witnesses referred to in the Complaint .

Dated: May 16, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF& SUCHAROW LLP

By:Barbara J . HartJonathan M . PlasseLouis GottliebLisa Buckser-SchulzDavid J . GoldsmithJon Adams

Lead Counsel for Lead PlaintiffConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Joseph J . Tabacco, Jr . (75484)Christopher T. Heffelfinger (118058)BERMAN DeVALERIO PEASE

TABACCO BURT & PUCILL O

Liaison Counsel for Lead PlaintiffConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

17

Exhibit H


o f 2

-----Original Message----- . From: Harwood, Anthony J. [maiIto:[email protected]

Sent: November 09,2006 11:29 AM To: Besirof, Philip T.; Garland, Terri Cc: Caro, Howard S.; Chris Heffelfiner Subject: JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation, 02-1486 CW ( EDL)-- Supplemental Disclosures and Discovery Responses

Dear Terri and Philip:

I am responding to Philip's letter from last night, November 8,2006, regarding supplemental disclosures and discovery responses. We recognize that the supplemental disclosures were due on November 3, 2006. We simply lost track of that date with all the other discovery responses we have been preparing and depositions we have been taking. We request that you allow us until Friday, February 17, 2006 to supplement those disclosures. If that date is acceptable to you, we will prepare a stipulation and order for submission to the Court. Let's add this to the agenda for our call this afternoon.

We recently sewed the following responses and supplemental responses to your clients' discovery demands on the following dates: (1) Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant Anthony Muller's First Set of lnterrogatories dated September 11,2006; (2) Responses and Objections to Defendant Jozef Straus's First Set of lnterrogatories dated September 29,2006 and November 1,2006; (3) Responses to Defendant Charles J. Abbe's First Set of lnterrogatories dated November 6,2006; (4) Response to Defendant JDSU's First Set of Requests for Admissions dated November 6,2006. At this time, so soon after we served the responses, we see no need to supplement them. As to the other discovery demands that your clients served, we have no supplemental information to provide at this time. We are aware of the continuing obligation all parties have to supplement discovery responses and will do so if and when the need arises.

We received JDSU's Second Supplemental Response to Request No. 6 of Lead Plaintiff's First Set of lnterrogatories and Second Set of Document Demands, dated November 3, 2006. The supplemental information contained in that response is information that JDSU had in its possession on September 30,2005, when Connecticut sewed those interrogatories. JDSU should have long ago provided this information, and Connecticut reserves all its rights with respect to JDSU's unjustified delay in providing that information.

Very truly yours,

Tony Harwood

Anthony J. Hatwood Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 Direct Dial: 212-907-0873


Message Page 2 of 2

Direct Fax: 21 2-883-7074

aharwood 8 1abaton.com

Please note my e-mail address and the Firm name have changed.

***Privilege and Confidentiality Notice***

This electronic message contains information that is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not the Addressee(s), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee(s1, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately at 212-907-0700 and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you.


Exhibit I

From: Besirof, Philip T.sent: uecemoer ui, Luub o :'+o rriTo: Harwood, Anthony J .Cc: 'Killian , Laura'Subject: JDSU

I ony ,

As we have discussed during previous meet-arid-confer sessions, JDSU believes that Plaintiffs' responses tointerrogatory. nos . 25

, Ln

yn

, JA

un

, 31, and n n33, 1 Setr .._ .~

10111Inrtl I

JL' U!S_ r : .._L

r iu ,tSet ofr interrogatories, are_ deficient . I I

it Plaintiffs' positio nregarding those responses has changed, please ICL meIC know . 1JL11CI VVIJC , we understand that we are at an impasseregarding ose f ive responses .those five

Philip

Philip T RPsirnf I Mnrrisnn R. Foerster I i P I 425 Market StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105 1 Voice 415 .268 .6091 1 Fax 415 .268 .7522

Exhibit J


Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict

Cou

rtFo

r th

e N

orth

ern

Dis

trict

of

Cal

iforn

ia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict

Cou

rtFo

r th

e N

orth

ern

Dis

trict

of

Cal

iforn

ia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONSECURITIES LITIGATION

This document relates to ALL ACTIONS /

No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL)

DISCOVERY PLAN

In response to the Court’s October 12, 2005 Order, the parties filed a joint proposed discovery

plan on October 31, 2005. The Court held a discovery conference on November 8, 2005. For the

reasons stated at the conference, the Court orders the following discovery plan for the next phase of

discovery:

1. By November 15, 2005, the JDSU Defendants shall produce: (i) documents concerning stock

purchases during the Class Period and any reasons for such purchases by Bruce Day, Robert Enos

and Casimir Skrzypczak; and (ii) all contact information that the JDSU Defendants have in an

“accessible electronic format for all persons they can readily identify as former finance or

accounting employees.”

2. By November 15, 2005, the JDSU Defendants will complete the production of responsive e-mail

during the Class Period in the files of Keith Bisbee, Kevin Kalkoven, Anthony Muller, Jozef Straus

and Leo Lefebvre.

3. During the week of December 5, 2005, counsel (including Barbara Hart and Jordan Eth or Terri

Garland) will meet and confer regarding: (i) a procedure for sampling documents from the time

period following the Class Period; (ii) more narrowly tailored requests for the production of

personnel files; (iii) the production of documents in response to Requests 33 and 35; (iv)

Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 407 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 1 of 3Case 4:02-cv-01486 Document 714 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict

Cou

rtFo

r th

e N

orth

ern

Dis

trict

of

Cal

iforn

ia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

procedures for identifying additional former finance employees whose information is not readily

accessible, beyond those identified in subparagraph (b)(ii) above, ; and (v) the production of exit

interviews from former finance or accounting employees.

4. During the week of December 5, 2005, counsel will meet and confer regarding: (i) the procedure

and timing of the production of data from JDSU’s Enterprise Resource Planning database; (ii) the

production of all paper and electronic documents, including e-mail from backup tapes and active

mail boxes, in the files of the Redbook team; (iii) the timing of the production of diaries,

appointment calendars, and telephone logs, as directed in the Court’s order of September 7, 2005,

and (iv) the sequencing and timing of the JDSU Defendants’ remaining production.

5. By November 9, 2005, Defendants shall provide to Lead Plaintiff a list showing the server location

of e-mail for the remaining individuals for which Lead Plaintiff seeks e-mail production. Those

individuals are: Charles Abbe, Don Bossi, Jeff Chase, Dan Clayton, Zita Cobb, Ken Crawford,

Harry Deffebach, Kerry Dehority, Rick Fieber, Steve Fife, Dave Fox, John Gordon, Joseph Ip,

David King, Fred Leonberger, Peter Moore, Steve Moore, Danny Pettit, Michael Phillips, Shelly

Pietrusiak, Charles Ragussa, Maurice Taveres, and Yves Tremblay. The parties shall meet and

confer by telephone no later than November 10, 2005 to reach agreement on production of e-mail

on a server-by-server basis.

6. Lead Plaintiff shall produce documents, including IRS 1099 tax forms, reflecting fees paid to any

confidential witness. No later than November 22, 2005, Lead Plaintiff shall respond in writing to

interrogatory 25 to identify oral communications with confidential witnesses, including who made

the communication and when it was made.

7. No later than November 10, 2005, the parties shall meet and confer regarding Defendants’

production of the metadata from all copies of the Pitre e-mail.

8. No later than November 15, 2005, the parties shall meet and confer regarding Defendants’

discovery directed to Lead Plaintiff as listed in the Joint Discovery Plan filed on October 31, 2005

at page 17, line 20 through page 18, line 18.

9. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the search terms that Defendants are using to review

documents. Lead Plaintiff may prepare a reasonable number of additional search terms if they have


Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict

Cou

rtFo

r th

e N

orth

ern

Dis

trict

of

Cal

iforn

ia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

a good faith basis for doing so.

10. Defendants shall use their best efforts to encourage their former accountants to produce the

accountants’ work papers.

11. No later than November 9, 2005, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a date for the next

discovery conference and the filing of a joint proposed discovery plan for the next phase of

discovery following that discussed here, as well as an update on discovery completed in this phase.

The joint proposed discovery plan must be filed no later than ten calendar days before the

discovery conference. No later than November 14, 2005, the parties shall notify the Court of their

joint proposed conference date. The date shall not be later than mid-February 2006, but may be

earlier.

11. The parties are not limited only to production of the documents described in this Order and in the

accompanying Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Lead Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and

Defendants’ Motion to Compel. If a party has other documents that the party believes the

opposing party should have before the mediation, the party is encouraged to produce those

documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2005 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTEUnited States Magistrate Judge


Exhibit K


--- 11/22/05 1 5 : S B FAX 212 618 0477 LABATON SUCEIABOW LLP f&lOO2/015

*.

Uaison Camel fa Lead Plaintiff Comecti~ut 'Retirement Pbms and Trust m d s

1

2

3

4

Barbara J. Hmt Jonathan M, Plasse Anthony 1. Hamood

I Michael W. Stocker

Joscph 1. Taboooo, Jr. (75484) Christopher T. Hefilfhger (1 18058) BERPJTAN DeVALERTO PEASE

TABACCO BURT & PUCKLO , 425 CaliEomia Street, Suite 2025 . San Francisco, California 941042205 Telephone: (41 5) 433-3200 FacsimiIe: (41 5 ) 433-63 82

100 Park Avenue New Y ork, New York 10017-5563 Tdephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile; (2 12) 8 18-0477

Lead Cowel for Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement P l m and Trust Funds


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALJFORNW

OAKLAND DIVISION . ,

IN RE IDS IlMPECASB CORPORATION ) Master We No. C 02-1486 CW . sacmums LITIGATION

This Document Applies To: All Actions 1 ) LEAD R-G 6UPP'LEMENTAL ) RESPONSE TO INTEBROGATORY NO. ) 25 M JDSU'S FIRST SET OF ) INTERROGATORIES


11/22/05 15:58 FAX 212 818 0477 U T O N SUCHAROW U P ~ 0 0 3 / o l S - -.. I

tbc identification OT disclasure of any infarmation that is protected by the attmcy-client I

I

1

2

3

4

5

had Plains Comdicut Rethemmi Plans and Tnr& Funds, herbby objects and

responds to JDSW s Hnc Set of htexrogatories to Lard Plaintiff Connecticut Retireunmt Plms

and Trust Funds: as hllows:

,GENERAIL 0-

1. Lead Nabtiff objects to any and all intermgabtics to the extent that they call for

9. 11 2. h a d PlaintiEobjocts to the Dofmitions and bstruttiws to my and dl I

' 8

1, 11 intmgatocias insofiu as (h*. Wmpt to hnposc obligations beyond those requirsd by the I

priViIe&cI tho attorney work product doc* or any other applicable o l a h of privilege. 1

disolosure of facts that are not discoverable. I

1 1

12

13

14

16 11 4. Lead Plaintiff objects to my and all intemgatorieg b tbs extent that they seek I

F e d d Rules of Civil Procedure.

3, Lead Plaintiff objects to the Definitions and Tmbutions and to any and dl,

intmgatories to the extent that they m unduly vague and burdensome, overly broad or seek the

I' (1 information that is neither rclc~mt to the subject matter d r h i s action nor reasonably cdcu1ated I

21 purports to include persons other than the named dehdants in tbis Action and will coastme II

18

19

20

to lead to discovery of admbsibIe evidence.

5. Lead Plaintiff objmb to the definition of "DEFENDANT(S)" to the extent h

26 ( 1 unduly bmde~lsornt to the extent that it pqorts to impow on Plaintiff an obligation to respond I

2

23

24

25

on behalf of peopla who are not mder Lead Plaintiffs control, Lend PIaintiffwiIl wnstnre I

' p E m A N T ( S ) " to mean Jozef Stmwq Anthony R MUUET~ Charles J. Abbe, Keyin

m o v e % IDSU, and say cmmt or finne5 o f f i m or d i n o m OTJDSU.

6. Lead Plaintiff objects to the definition of 'YOIJ" and 'YOUR" as overbroad and


. . 11/22/05 1 . 5 ~ 5 8 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON S U C W O W LLP Q004/015

-.-

l(c-t and fnma of f i~m, direom, imd mployesl. I

RESPONSES TO INTERRWATODS I INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

For each PBRSON IDENTIHBD in YOOR responge to httrmgatoxy No, 23, IDENTIFY each COMMUMCATION by or between YOU and that PEWON, including but not limited to

I m IDENTFICATTON of each DOCUMEN that recorded, d d , or ldensd to my of those COMMUNICATIONS, and an IDENTTFICATION of the custodian of any of Mosc DOCUMENTS.

WPQNSE TO INTEIWOOATORY NO. 25:

Lad Plamtiff inwrponted by r&ence each oftbe foregoing General Obj~t iow. ~ i a d

?labtiff fidw objects to this intemgatq as s e w i n f o d o n p r o t d by the work-

pduct privilege.

Subject to and without waiving the~e objections, Plaintiff responds to Interrogatory No.

25 as annexed in Attachment A.


I

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: November 22,2005 ~ c ~ y subdtted,

LABATON SU-OW & RUDOFF U P

Jonathan M. Phse Anthony J, m o o d Michael W. S t o c k Jon Adams

LRad Counsel for Lead Plaintiff C a d c u t Rdimxmt Plans and Trust Funds

Joseph 1. Tabacco, 3r. (75484) Christopha T. Heffelhgts (1 1 805 8) BERhrPAN DeVALERIO PEASE

TABACCO BURT & PUClUO

Liaison Counsel f6r Lead Plaintiff Comeotiout Retirement Plans and T h t Funds

I


11/22/05 1S:5B FAI 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCilAROW LLP

-.

I

2

3

5

6 . 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-y 1. I Anthony J. Hawood, d s d s n that I I Of Coumiel to Labacon Sucharow &

R u b e LLP. I have read the foregoing Lead PldntifW Supp1mental Response to htem,g&ry

NO. 25 ~n JDSU'S ~iz ts t set ofhtmogatoriitg and I lmm iba contents thsreofi

2. I b l a r e under penalty of peqjuy under the laws of the United States that tho

responses contained in the foregoing Lead PlaintifW SuppIernental Respon8e to lnt~mgatoe

No. 25 In JDSU'S First Set of htemgatonaq am me and o o m t within th~ limits of my

IImOwZedge,

Excouted on November 22,2005, at New York, New Yark.

Of Counsel Labaton such an,^ & Rudoff, UP


11/22/05 lS:59 FAX 212 8 1 8 0477 LABATON SUCmROw LLP

C d c a t e of Service by Fax and Mail

Howard S, Cam J. Chistopha Mtche-)I HeLle~ Ehrmm White & McAuliffe LLP 275 Middldield Road Menlo Park, California 94025-3506 TeIephone: (650) 324-1000 Facsmde: (650) 324-0638

2

3 . 4

5

I an t paralegal with Labaton Suchamw & Rudoff LU, 100 Park Avenue, New York, New Ymk. I am o a r 18 yare old and not a p a y to this d o n ; On November 22,2005, I c a u d the hegoing docummt titled, LEAD P ~ T F F S ' SUPPLEMENTAL RBSPONSB INTERROGATORY NO. 25 IN JDSU'S FIRST SET OF lNIl$RROGATORIES to be saved upon all cmsel following the firm's d a r y busheas p'mtite f i faDsimile ~ s s i o n and by pking the docllxnent~ for collectiop and mailing in a s e a h i envelope, with mt olsss postage thsre~n my prepaid, far deposit in the United Strites mail at Ntw York, Ncv York addressed as set forth below: 1

16 Attorneysfir the JDS Defenddnts I I

10

11

12

13

14

15

Christopher T, Beffclfinger Beman DeValerio Pease Tabacca B u t & Pudllo 425 California Street, Suite 2025 San Francisco, California 94 104-2205 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382

- -

Actomeys for Defendant Kain Kalboven

Jordan Eth Terri Garland Alison Tucher Momson Bc Fomter W9 425 Market Street San Francisco, Calif& 94105-2482 Telephone: (41 5 ) 268-7000 Facsimile: (41 5) 268-7522

1 declare under penalty of p 'ury that the a true and wmct. Executed on November 22,2005, at Ncw York, ew York.

I Locul CouweZ for Lead Plaintrr Cannectkut Retirement Plans and Tmt Fun&


. . 11/22/05 15:59 PAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCEAROII UP ~ O O U / O ~ S

-7


L W PLAXNTI[PFWS SUPPLBMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25 JN JDSU'S PIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

CUSTODIAN OF . DOCUMENT Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff

Labaton, Suchow & Rudoff

Labaton, Sucharow & , Rudoff

Labaton, Su~harow & RdoE -

labaton, Sucbrow &

SUBSTANCE OF COMMUNlCATlON Evidenoe of fiaud at JDW

Evidence of fiaud at JDSU

Evidence of fraud at JDSU

Bvidence of 6rsud at JDSU

Evidence of &aud at

WITNESSES INTERVIEWEDfCONCACreD N~%s Jeff

Lather, Johu Nguyeo,Jeff -

Gallagher, Robed Trondowtki, Janusz

Drothleq JeE

Burns, Doma

DOcxJlmm ANID DATE

05/07/02 Privileged and Confiderhat I Attomey Wmk Produd Communication 05/29/02 Privileged aad C d U / Attorney Work froduct Comunim-on 05/3 1/02 Privileged and Confidential /- Attorney Wodc

, Pmchlct cammuacation WlU02 Prideged and Confideatid I Attorney Work Product Communication 06/23/02 Privileged

AUTHOR

Investigator at h e request of counsel

' Investigator at the request of counsel

Investigator at the request of oounsel

investigator at the requd of counsel

Investigator a! the

-

Leisinger, D a m e Macjka, S e a

Gallagher, R o b a

and Confidential / Attorney Work Product Communication

[ 07L24/02 Privileged

JDSU request of counsel

Itnvtstigator at the

Rudoff

Evidence of fimd at , Labaton; S h w &


JDSU

Evidmce of fiaud at JDSU

Evidence ofhad at -JDSU Evidence of h u d at SDSU- . Evidence of h w i at JJXU

Evidmce of f i d at ,

JDSU Ihidence of h a d at JDSU


Evidence of kaud at

Guckavan, Bryan -

KO& Collin Macika, Sandra

?M-SGdra

Mach, Sandn

Jeff DroIher

Jeff Drothcr

Qui~onw, Samuel

Arb, Pahicia

Bakes, Tim

a d Confidential / Attorney Work Product ComInunicatio~~

0811 2/02 Privileged and Confidential / Attorney Work Product C o ~ c a t i o a 08/1#02 Communication 08/16/02 Comm~cation 0113 1/03 Privileged and Confidential / Attamey Work Product Communicstian 02/1#03 communcltion 03/27/03 Privileged and. Contidentid / Attorney Work PIaduct C o ~ t i m 05/06/03 Privileged and Codidenti a1 / Atlomey Wmk Aoalct Communicatioo 05/08/03 Privileged

RudofF

Labaton, Suchmw & Rudoff

Labaton, Suchrow & Ru&ff Labatan, Suchrow & Rudoff Labaton, Sucbarow & R&ff

Labaton Sucbsaow & RudoE Labam Sucharow & Rudoff

Labaton, Sucharow & Rndof'r

Labaton, Sucharow &

request of counsel

Invtstigator at the request of counsel

SauQa Macika

Sandra J. Macika

Attorney at Labaton, *W & Rudoff

Jeff Dmtblm

Attorney rt Maton, Sucbmw & RaQE

Attorney at Labaton, SuchaKIw & Rudoff

Attomey at Labaton,


and ConSdmtial/ ( Suchmw & RudofF I JDSU

I Attorney wark Product I

Attorney Wmk Product Ctmnmnication 05/08/03 Privileged aLBd ConfSddali

Attorney at Labaton, Sucharow & W f f

Communication 05/08/03 Privileged and Confidential /

Attorney Work Product CommImication

ccmnunication 05/09/03 Privileged mdCodidmtidl

I 05/09/03 Rideged Attorney .t Labaton, m y , Eric and Co&dential/ I Sucharow & Rudoff I

Tybor, Mark

I Attorney at Maton, Suchamw & Rudoff

I Attorney Work h d u d I

Attomey at Labaton, SucaroKkRudoff I

Labatan, Sucharow & Rudoff


P d s , Gail

M a t o n , Sucharow & RudaK

Evidence of 6aud at JDSU

Libby, John Evidknce of fraud at JDSU

Commuuication 051 12/03 Privileged and Coddentid / Attorney Work Product

( Attorney wok I I I 1 4

Commuaicatian 0511 4/03 Privileged and C d h a l /

Al(omcy at Labatan, Sacharow & Rudoff

Mlomey at Labaton, Sucharaw&Rmhff

Thomas, Smtl Evidence of fraud at DSU

Namanleg, Janice Evideace of fraud at JDSU

Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff


Pduct

05/14/03 Privileged and Confidential / Attorney Work Pr- Co-c&on 06/02/03 %vileged d Cadidcntial/ Attorney Work Pmdmt

Attorney at Labaton, Sucharow 8t Rudoff

Attorney at Labaton, Suchow & Rudoff

andConfidenbiaJ! Sdmmw &Rudoff , SDSU Rudoff Attorney W& Product

Thoqsan, Smd-ra

Gainey, Maureen

0611 8/03 Privileged and Cddmtial! Amnq work Product

a Communication 07/02/03 PririIcgad d CoufibantialI Atbrney Work Product

Evidence of h u d at JDSU

Evidence of h u d at JDSU

Evidence o f h u d at and Confideatial I Sucbarow & Rudoff JDSU Rudoff Attorney Work Froduct Communiostion

Attamey at Labaton, Suchrow & Rudoff

Anormy at Maton, suchmow & RudDB'

Labaton, Suchamw & Rudoff

Labaton, S~harow & RudoE

Lawrenct, Roy

Arle, Pahicia

Evidence of bud at 3DSU

Endenca of h u d at JDSU

Labaton, S u b w & Rudoff

Labaton, Suchamw & Rudoff


Labaton, Suchmow & Rudoff Labafon, Sucharow & Rudoff

Labaton, S u c h w & W O E

Libaton, Suchamw & Rudoff

Labaton, Sucharow & Moff

Labstap, S u c b w & Rudaff

Latjatm, Sucharow & Rudoff

Evidence of h u d at JDSU Evidence of h d at JDSU

Evidence o f f d at JDSU

Evidence of fkaud at JDSU


Evidence of fkwd at JDSU

Bvideace of fiaud at JDSU

Jeff Drother

Hawkins, Kelli

Voicheck, Makt

-Brent ,

Chafcmvd, Philip

NIX, 'Mmjkt

Dswlt, Jeff

Jeff DroWer

Attorney at Labatan, - Sucbarow & Rudoff

Attozney at Lpb.tcm, such an,^ & Rndoff

Attornty J Labaton, Sucharow&Ru&ff -

Attmmy at Labaton, sucharow &Rudaff

Attorney at Matan, Sucha~~w & Rudoff

Atbmey at Labalm, Sucbaraw & Rudoff

'

.

07!06/03 ~ o ~ c a s i o u 07/21/03 Privileged and Confidential I Attorney Work Product CommGcatioo 07/24/03 Privileged and C u d i d d a l / Attorney W o e mdwi Cwrrnrmication 0 7 W 0 3 Privileged andcdcntialf Attomey Work Praduci Communication

09/08/03 Privileged and Confidentid/ Attorney Wark Product Cammdcation 0911 u03 Privileged and Contidedial / Attorney Work Produd Communic&on 09/16/a Privilcgd and Coddentid l Attorney Wok Product


-

Labatom, Sucharow & RudofF

Lababn, S P C h w & Rudoff

b - Labatcm, Sucharow & Rudoff

Labaton, Sudxuow & *

Rudoff

Labatan, Smhamw & Rudoff

Laben, Sucharow & Rudoff

Communication 09/19/03 Privileged and Confidential / Attorney Work Aoduct Communicatiun 09/22/03 &vileged and Confidential l Atbmey Work Product Cammmicatim 09/24/03 Privileged and Cantilde~tjal/ ;

Attorney Work product C ~ C & O D 11/25/03 Privileged amd Confidentid / Attorney Work Product Cammmication

Attmey at Labaton, . Slachmw & Rudoff '

Attam9 at Labaton, Suchmow & Rudoff 1

Attorney-at Labatan, S U ~ W & Rud~ff

Investigator at the request of counsel

Dsault, JeE

Gag- Ouy

&-, Orlando

Naziui, John

N d , Jahn

Nazari, John

Bvicbce of h u d at JDSU

Evidence of bud at JDW

Evidence of fraud at I JDSU

Evihce o f fraud at JDSU

Evidence of l i d at JDSU

Evidence of ihud af jDSU

11f3W3 Privileged , and Confidential / I Attorney Work Product Comuni~athn 12/02/03~ Priviieged and Ccddantid / Attorney Work Product C o ~ u n i c d o a

Investigator at the reqmst of comsel

Inwsfigator at fhe request of cuunsal


Labaton, Suchmaw & Rudoff Lab aton, Suclramw & Rudoff Lab-, Sucharow dk Rudoff Labalon, Sucbatow & Rudoff

Evidence of thud at JDSU Evidence of h u d at JDSU Evidence of fkud at JDSU Evidence of bud at JDSU

JefTDrother

Jeff Bother

Jeff Drotha

Jeff Drother

03/16/04 CoItMxmicatim 03/16/04 Cunrmaaiiation 03/16/04 Communication 0311 8/04 Communication

Attorney at Laban, Suchow & Rudoff Jeff Dro ther

Attomty at labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff Jeff Drothler


Exhibit L


02/07/2006 1 5 : 4 i P A X 1 2 1 2 8 1 8 0 4 i f L A B A I U N SULHAKUW LLP

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr- (75484) Christopher T. Heffelfinger (1 18058) BERMAN DeVALERIO PEASE

TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO 425 California Street, Suite 2025 Sm Francisco, California 941 04-2205 Telephone: (41 5) 433-3200 Facsirnilc: (41 5 ) 433-6382

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and rust Funds

Barbam J. Hart Jonathan M. Plasse Anthony Harwood Mike Stocker (1 79083) Jon Adams LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 1001 7-5563 Telephone: (21 2) 907-0700 Facsimile: (2 12) 8 18-0477

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trst Funds

[Additional counsel Iistd below]


NORTHERN DIS'TEUCT OF CALFORMA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION ) Master File No. C 02-1486 CW SECURlTlES LITIGATION )

) CLASS ACTION

This Document Applies To: All Actions ) ) LEAD PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL ) RESPONSES TO JDSU'S FIRST SET OF ) INTERRoGAToRlEs

!

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO JDSU'r PINT SET OF INTERROGATORIES


02 /07 /2006 1 5 : 4 7 FAX 12128180477 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

2 responses to interrogatories 30 and 31, and incorporates its general and specific objections I I I 1

3 (together with the objections also noted herein, "Objectibns") in its original responses to JDSU's I I I

Lead Plaintiff, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, hereby supplements its

4 First Set of Interrogatories to Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and T m t ~unds, date I I $ May 16,2005. Lead Plaintiff notes that this response is unnecessary and submitted only to avoid I I 6 needless motion practice. The interrogatories seek hcts supporting allegations set forth in the I I I 7 Second Amended Complaint. The facts supporting the alIegations are pled with specificity in I I 8 Second Amended Complaint, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Refonn Act. Lead I I 9 Plaintiff further objects that these interrogatories are premature in that they are being interposed I I

before Lead Plaintiff has had the opportunity to engage in a complete review of documents,

1 1 which are being produced continuously, or take many depositions. I I I 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 30: I I I 14

l6

17

18

19

11 by faets reported by: 22

State all facts supporting YOUR contentions in paragraphs 18-19 and 147-50 of the COMPLAINT regarding the "Pitre e-mail," including YOUR contention in paragraph 149 of the COMPLAINT that "the Pitre smail confirms the information provided by scores of former JDS employees described above who stated that demand had slowed down prior to August 2000 and that JJ3S management had already taken various steps, including shipping merchandise without orders, cutting overtime and reducing shifts, and planning a global reorganization of the Company in reaction to that reduction in demand."

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 30: . .

20

2 1

1) Confidential Witnesses 5, who oonfimed that in April 2000 Nortel and Lucent cancelled 23 1

Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of its Objections. Subject to these

Objections, Lead Plaintiff responds that the allegations referenced by Defendants are supported I

I (orders resulting in $40 million of inventory buildup; 24 I

I I Confidential Witnesses 7, rho was at the IDS Horsham plant and who confirmed that 25 I 1 I business took a "nose-dive" in the quarter ending June 30,2000, with revenue dnlining by 26 1 11 approximately 70% during that quarter; and that raw material and finished goods were building 27 I 28 I1 in the quarter ending September 30,2000;

I I. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO JDSU's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES


0 2 / 0 - { / Z O O 6 1314 1 F A X 121281804 t I' LABAIUN SUCHAHUI LLP M 0 0 4 / 0 0 7

1

2

3

Confidential Witnesses 10, who confirmed that customers were reducing their

requirements by Spring 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 12, who confinned that products were being sent into storage,

4

5

6

7

8

such as in late June 2000, as that fiscal yeas was ending;

Confidential Witnesses 16, who confinned inventory buildup in Ottawa in April 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 17, who confirmed product being returned fiom No~tel in mid-

2000;

Confidential Witnesses 18, who confirmed discussions of declining demand as of March

9

10

11

2000;

Confidential Wimesses 19, who confirmed that order cancellations at Sm Jose began in

earnest in March or April 2000, and that by mid-2000 orders from Nortel, Ciena, Alcarel, and

12

13

O N Systems were falling;

Confidential Witnesses 20, who confirmed that orders from Lucent, Ciena and Alcatol

14

15

were cancelled as of March and April 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 21, who confinned that demand decreased at Bloomfield in the

16

I7

I8

19

Spring of 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 22, who confinned that orders ar Bloomfield fell significantly by

April 2000;

Confidentis1 Witnesses 23, who confirmed demand probIems with Ciena and Lucent, and

20

2 I

22

23

24

25

that overtime was cut as of May 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 24, who confirmed that product was being shipped to cancelled

orders out of San Jose, and that Nortel and Alcatel were returning product in the period

immediately after the E-TEK acquisition in June 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 25, who confirmed that by April 2000 product was being

overproduced at Windsor, CT, and, subsequently, no overtime was authorized, end tempo-

26

27

28

staff was fired,

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO JDSU's FIRST SET OF M'IERROGATORIPS 2


02/07/2006 1 5 : 4 7 FAX 12128180477 L A B A T O N SUCHAROW LLP

Confidontial Witnesses 26, who confirmed that employees in Ottawa started being fired

by May or June 2000, inventory was building as of June 2000, and NorteI w a s returning product

by June and July 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 27, who confirmed problems with modulators and customer

relations with Nortel, Lucent, and Alcatel, and that overtime stopped at Bloomfield around May

2000;

Confidential Witnesses 29, who c o ~ e d that products were rushed to pick up revenue

early, there was no wbrk to be had at Bloomfield by Summer 2000, and Cisco cancelIed its orda

for modulators;

Confidential Witnesses 31, who confirmed that Lucent cancelled a major order in August

Confidential Witnesses 32, who conFmed a severe downturn in demand at Bloomfield

and Windsor as of May 2000; ,

I4

15

16

17

--I . T OF INT

Confidential Witnesses 33, who confirmed that inventory was building by mid-2000, and

this was "wideIy known";

Confidential Witnesses 34, who confinned that top management in BIoornfield began to

leave in the Summer of 2000, when there werc order cancellations and returns, which were not

i

due to defective product;

Confidential Wimesses 35, who confirmed that demand decreased at San Jose as of April

2000;

Confidential Witnesses 36, who confirmed that at San Jose customers were canceling

orders in mid-2000;

Confidontial Witnesses 37, who conf~nned that mund July 2000 customers were

canceling orders and sending back product to San Jose;

Confidential Witnesses 38, who ~onfimed a decrease in orders at San Jose as of June

2000;


L A B A I U N SUCHAKUW LLY

1 eliminated;

Confidential Witnesses 40, who canfirmed that all employees were laid offat a JDS fiber

optics plane in Ottawa in March or April 2000; those employees were fired bcause, according to

the building manager, "business slowed down*' and "Nortel wasn't buying anymore";

Conf~dential Witnesses 41, who confirmed that orders came to a halt in mid to late 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 43, a Facilities Manager for the entire Ottawa operations, who

1

2

confirmed that discussions for widescale downsizing began in June 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 44, who confirmed that business unit managers in Ottawa were

told by mid-2000 that they were overestimating demand for component parts, and that those

same optical components were building up on the shelves; the information regarding declining

demand was reported up the chain of command to CEO Jozef Straus;

Confidential Witnesses 47, who confirmed that demand at Ottawa had fallen as of Augus

Confidential Witnesses 39, who confirmed that by late Spring or early Summer of 2000

rhe Santa Clara plant was running less, people were working reducd hours, and overtime was

2000;

Confidential Witnesses 49, who confirmed major buildups of inventory in San Jose by

May or June 2000;

Confidential Witnesses 50, who confirmed mass cancellations by Nortel and other

19 companies in 2000, I I 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: I I I

Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of its Objections. Subject to these

2 1

22

23

Objmtions, Lead Plaintiff responds:

Confidential Witness 45 explained that the Redbook detailed projects, quantities, quotas,

and anticipated profits, Confidential Witness 46 explained that the Redbook existed to '%tie

State all facts supporting YOUR contentions regarding the "Redbook" in paragraphs 21 and 144-46 of the CONPLAINT, including YOUR contention in paragraph 146 of the COMPLAINT that "the Redbaok team did not want to officially acknowledge the bad news with respect to demand or sales, and delayed downward revisions of its forecasts as long as possible."


02 /07 /2006 1 5 : 4 7 FAX 12128780477 L A B A T O N SUCHARUW LLP a 007/007

2 11 Confidential Witness 46 explained fu~her rbat the pdbook forecasts were verified up "through I 3 the ranks." Discovery to date has confirmed that the Redbook went all the way up to Jozef I I I 4 Straus; (JDSU 0025804) ("[o'Jnce Jozef [Sbaus] signs off on the red-book.. ."). I I I 6 Dated: February 7,2006 I I Respectfully submitted,

LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP

BY: Y Barbara J. Hart Jonathan M. Plasse Anthony Hmood Mike Stocker (1 79083) Jon Adams

h a d Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. (75484) Christopher T. Heffelfinger (1 I805 8) BERMAN DeVALERIO PEASE

TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds


Exhibit M


11/13/06 18:55 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. (75484) Christopher T. Heffelfinger (1 18058) BERMAN DeVALERIO PEASE

TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94104-2205 Telephone: (41 5) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382

Liaison Counsel for Lead PIaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Jonatha M. Plasse Barbara J. Hart Anthony J. Hawood Michael Stocker (1 79083) Jon Adams LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP

b a d Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

I I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I I NORTHEXN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I I OAKLAND DIVISION

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION ) Master File No. C 02-1486 CW SECURITIES LITIGATION 1

) CLASS ACTION

This Document Applies To: All Actions j PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL ) INITIAL DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO ) P.R.C.P. 26(a)(l)

I I As aad for its Supplemental Initial Disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), Lead

11 Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds ("Connecticut"), through its attorneys

I (Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, states as follows:

I I 1. The following individuals am likely to have discoverable information that

I I Cormecticut may use to support its claims or defenses on the subject matters identified below.

I I Their addresses are provided where possible.

(a) Infomation pertaining to investments in JDS Uniphase securities:


Gregory D. Franklin Assistant Treasurer for Investments Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds ('cConnecticut'') State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 061 06 c/o (21 2) 907-0700

Maureen Freeman AXA Rosenberg Institutional Equity Management Four Ohda Way Bldg E Orinda, CA 94563 (925) 253-331 8 (Outside manager for Connecticut)

Juliana Hastings . BGI Barelays Global Investors, N.A. 45 Frmont Street San Francisco CA 941 05 (4 15) 597-23 66 (Outside manager for Connecticut)

Theodore 5. Deutz Dresdnsr RCM Global Investors LLC Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 941 11 (415) 954-5400 (Outside manager for Connecticut)

John Barn JF Morgan Fleming 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036 (212) 837-1423 (Outside manager for Connecticut)

James E. Thorsen State Street Global Advisors State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, MA 0 2 1 1 1 (6 17) 664-2342 (Outside manager for Connecticut)

John Lau CitiGroup Asset Management (TMCO) 100 First Stamford Place 7th Floor


LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Stamford, CT 06902 (203) 96 14903 (Outside manager for Co~~ciicut)

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (Wouston") 11 11 Bagby - Suite 2450 Houston, TX 77002-25 5 5 C/O (212) 907-0700 (SDL shareholder)

Axiom International Jon Yenor, SVP Marketing 55 Railroad Avenue, 3rd Floor Greenwich, CT 06830-6378 (203) 422-8030 (Outside manager for Houston)

Brown Capit a1 Management Eddie Brown, Principal 1201 N. Cdvert St. Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 837-3234 (Outside manager for Houston)

Kopp Investment Advisors Ken Coffinan, Client Services 7701 France Avenue South, Suite 500 Edina, MN 55435 (952) 841-0400 (Outside manager for Houston)

Putnam Investments Michael Clare One Post Office Square Boston, MA 02019 (6 17) 760-7625 (Outside manager for Houston)

Oechde International Advisers Dee Keesler, Portfolio Manager One International Place, 23rd Floor Boston, MA 021 10 (617) 330-8826 (Outside manager for Houston)

Deanis McCool ('~cCoor') 5306 Vista Club Run Sanford, FL 32771 -7169



C/O (212) 907-0700 (E-Tek shareholder)

Information pertaining to analysts' coverage of 3DS Uniphase:

ABN AMRO Incorporated 540 West Madison Street, Suite 25 14 Chicago, IL 60661

Bloomberg Communications Iac. c/o Corporation Service Company 80 State Street Albany, New York 12207-2543

CIBC World Markets Corp. 300 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Credit Suisse First Boston LLC 1 1 Madison Avenue NewYork,NY 10010

First Union Securities/Wachovia Securities 901 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219

J,P. Morgan Securities hc. 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017

Lehrnan Brothers Inc. 745 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019

Morgan Stanley & Co. 15 85 Broadway New York, NY 10036

Pstine Webber Incorporated 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 100 19

Prudential-American Securities, Jnc. 921 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 9 1 106


11/13/06 18:56 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP @I 006 I I

Robertson Stephens, hc. 555 Catifornia Street S a Francisco, CA 94 104

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RMC Capitaf 604 Vestal Parkmy W Vestal, New York 13850

Period:

SG Cowen Bc Co, LLC 1 22 1 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020

Smith Barney Citigroup/Citigroup Global Markets Inc 390 - 3 88 Greenwich Street New York, NY I0013

UBS Financial Services hc. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 100 19

US Bancoq Piper J&y 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 800 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-7020

Warburg Dillon Read LLC 677 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901

William Blair & Co., LLC 222 West Adams Street Chicago, IL 60606

WR Hambrecht & Co. 555 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Berwyn, PA 1 93 12

(c) Information pertaining to JDS Uniphase's acquisitions during the Class

Michael J. Fitzpatrick

David F. Welch 3286 Old 49 Highway Erin, TN 3706 1

Gregory P. Dougherty



Don Sciffes

Della Bynum

Bank of America N.A. 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104

Sanjay Subhedar 88 Spencer Lane Atherton, CA 94027

Craig B. Collins Cosine Communications, Jnc. 3200 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065

Michael L. Foster SDL Capital & SDL Ventures 2800 Sand Hill Road, Suite 120 Menlo Park, CA 94025

Banc of America Securities LLC 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 941 1 1

CIBC World Markets Corp. 300 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Goldman Sacb & Co. 555 California Street, 45th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Hambrecht & Quist Capital Management LLC 30 Rowes Wharf, Suite 430 Boston, MA 02 1 10

Thomas Weisel Partners LLC One Montgomery Strtct San Francisco, CA 94104

26 / I (d) Information pertaining to the business prospects, financial results and/or

27 1 ( accounting practices of JDS Uniphase during the Class Period:


LABATON S U C W O W LLP

Charles J. Abbe C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 941 05

Phil Anthony 63 5 Greenrock Rsd. Milpitas, CA 95035 408-7 19-1 956

Patricia Arle

Rick Bajinski unknown

Tim Bakes

Lillian Bell

Ron Blackman

Jodi Blanco 17 Elaine Drive Broad Brook, CT 06016

Kwong Boey Ottawa

Anthony Boncore 83 Simonich Circle Chicopee, Mass. 01013

Maggi Bonnah 55 1 Richmond Ashton, ON KOA IBO 6 13-253-0333

Leslie Brown C/O Heller Ehrman 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104

Gordon Buchan 841 Adencliffe Drive Orleans, ON K4A 2N1 613-830-8835


5:56 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Diana Burns 14930 Native Dancer Drive Morgan Hill, CA 95037

Ashok Chandran C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94 105

Ghazi Chaoui 12032 Distant Thunder Trail, Apt. T Clarksville, MD 21 029-1699

Denise Chau 2557 Crestfield Drive Castro Valley, CA 94552

Jeff Chase C/O Momison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Philip Chateauvert 30 Foxtail Crescent Amprior, ON 613-623-6013

Bruce Coleman

Zita Cobb c/o Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Brian Cover 802 Century Drive Campbell, CA 95008

Cinzea Cuneo

Brent Cunningham 613-748-5418

Ken Crawford C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105


11/15/08 18156 FAA 212 518 V477 M A T U N SUL'HAKUW LLY

Lorenzo Crivellai 13 Higgins Road Nepean, ON 613-596-1534

Carol Davis 45 George Ridgetown, ON NOP 2C0 5 7 3 19-674-38

Bruce Day C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 941 05

Jeff Deault 2440 Joliffe St. Ottawa, ON KlGlG9 613-523-1 129 613-721-8194

Harry Deffebach C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 941 05

Keny Dehority C/O Momson & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94 105

Tom Dorval 56 17 Av Gatineau Montreal, Quebec H3T 1x6

Jeff Drothler 45445 Potawatami Drive Fremont, CA 94539

Robert Enos C/O Momson & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Manuel Erea



Ernst & Young 560 Mission Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94105

Orlando Estezo 5 19-568-8772

Henry Fan 925 W. Duarte Rd, #C Arcadia, CA 9 1007

Cathy Fawcett

Gerry Fine C/O Richard A. McGuirk Nixon Peabody LLP 1 100 Clinton Square Rochestor, NY 14604

Stephanie F r d d h C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Robert Gallagher 213 Sequoia Drive Newtown, PA

Guy Gagnon

Maureen Gainey

Robert Gallagher 213 Sequioa Drive Newton, PA 18940 215-431-3716

Eitan Gertel c/o: Optium Corporation 500 Horizon Drive, Suite 505 Chalfont, PA 18914

Don Goodwin

Ed Grabowy d o Latham & Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Ste 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 -2562



Carol Ann Graves C/O Monison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 941 05

Lou Greco 26-30 Montcalm Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1 S OA3

Bryan Guckavan 474 Bershire Drive Souderton, PA 18964

Kelli Hawkins

Peter Hellemeier C/O: Optium Corporation 500 Horizon Drive, Suite 505 Chalfont, PA 1 89 14

Peter Heywood C/O Jefiey 0. Grossman, Esq. CMP Media, LLC 600 Community Drive Manhasset, New York 1 1 030

Bryant Hichwa 4100 Pressley Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 707-579- 1 1 82

Dave Hudson

Joseph Ip .

27 Cecil Walden Ridge Kmta, ON K2K3C6

Russ Johnson C/O HeUer Ehnnan 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104

Candy Johnston C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Kevin Kalkhoven C/O Heller Ehrman


11/13/06 18:57 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCEAROW LLP

333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 941 04

Eric Kelly 60 Pinney Street Ellington CT 06029

Glen Kernick C/O Scott Fink Gibson D m & Crutcher L W One Montgomery Street Suite 3 100 San Francisco, California 941 04 (415) 393-8200

Sopheap Khieu

Stephen Krasulick C/O: Optium Corporation 500 Horizon Drive, Suite 505 Chalfont, PA 18914

Eric Latrielle Ontario

John Lattimer 53 Cooper Hill Rd. Granby, CT 06035

Roy Lawrence 204 Newbury Street Hartford, CT 061 14

John Libby M 12 Mill Pond Rd. Broad Brook, CT 06016

Mario Leduc C/O MOIT~SOII & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Leo Lefebvre C/O Momson & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105


1 10:57 FAA ;112 818 U477 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Deanne Leisinger 1420 Alma Way Sm Jose, CA

Fred Leonberger C/O EOvation Technologies LLC 43 Waterside Lane West Hartford, CT 061 07

John Libby 59 Mill Pond Rd Broad Brook, CT 0601 6 860-741-2466

David Lightfoot C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Sandra Macika 836 N. Jackson Ave. San Jose, CA 95133

Rick MacMiUan c/o Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

John A, Macnaughton C/O Momson & Foester LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105

David Marcellus

RudoJf Marek

Herbert Maone 22 Laurie Drive Enfield, CT 06082-2109

Douglas McNaird 613-652-4634

Toni McWilliams C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94 105


11/13/06 18:57 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON S U C W O W LLP

Jose Mejia c/o Mitch Greenberg, Esq. Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery, 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95401-1 566

Roger Misckowicz c/o Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94 105

Peter Moore C/O Moltfison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Steve Moore C/O Momson & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94 105

Anthony R. MuIler C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Anthony Musto C/O: Optium Corporation 500 Horizon Drive, Suite 505 Chalfont, PA 189 14

Janice Namauleg

John Nazari 905-882-2600

Manjeet Ner 15 Calais Crt Nepean, ON K2E 7E 1 613-727-3708

JR Newland 943 Aztec' Dr. Castle Rock, CO 80108

Jeff Nguyen 3 849 Rue Mitassou San Jose, CA 95148


11/13/06 18:57 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCEAROW LLP

Ileane Nolan

Jeffrey Oster Law Offices of Edward F. Mitchell 1750 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 941 2 1 415-954-851 7

Gail Paridis

Scott Parker Integration Associates, Inc. 110 Pioneer Way, Unit L Mountain View, California 94041 650-969-4100

Danny Pettit C/O Kalkboven, Pettit, Levin & Johnson Ventures LLC 149 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 2008 Mcnlo Park, CA 94025

Michael C. Phillips C/O Monison & Fomter LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304

Thomas Pitre 6964 Viola North Gower, Ontario

Attorney K. Scott McLean Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 99 Bank Stred, Suite 1420 Ottawa, Ontario KIP IH4 613-783-9600

Sam Quinones

Bert Ramos

David Renner c/o: Optium Corporation 500 Horizon Drive, Suite 505 Chalfont, PA 18914

Alison Reynders C/O Momson & Foerster 425 Market St.



San Francisco, CA 94 105

Patricia Rivette

Tr~vor Roots P.O. Box 778 Los Olivos, CA 93441

Bob Russell C/O Morrison & Fomter 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94 105

Fred Schafer 855 Melwood Avenue Ottawa, ON K2A 3C2

Eric Sladic

Bonnie Sperry

Jozef Straw C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Paul Suchoski c/o: Optium Corporation 500 Horizon Drive, Suite 505 Chalfont, PA 18914

Maurice Tavares c/o Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105

Scott Thomas

Sandra Thompson 408-247-2708

Tai Ton 1029 Summerfield Drive San Jose, CA 95 121

Rick Trifunov

Janusz Trondowski



Mark Tybor 63 1 Talcottville Road Vernon, CT 06066-23 53

Kumar Visvanatha C/O Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 941 05

Matt Voicheck 1675 Bridle Path Drive Lausdale, PA 19446

Dan Welch 3280 Old 49 Hwy Erin, TN 37061. 860-365-0554 800-25 1-4243

John Wetherill 61 84 Secret Lake Dr. Port Orange, FL 321 28

Kim White

Jeff Whitelock

Steve Young

2. The categories and locations of documents, data compilations, and tangible things in

Connecticut's possession, custody, and control that Connecticut currently believes it may use to

support its claims or defenses are:

a. Deposition exhibits;

b. Exhibits or documents identified in pleadings, motions and other submissions to the

Court;

c. Exhibits to Connecticut 's first and second mediation statements;

d. Documents identified in the following discovery responses:


11/13/06 18:57 FAX 212 818 0477 LABATON SUCBAROW LLP

i, Connecticut's Responses to JDSU's Intenogatories dated May 16,2005;

November 22,2005; and February 7,2006;

ii. Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees ,Pension System Response to JDSU's

Interrogatories;

iii. Connecticut's Responses to Anthony Mullw's Interrogatories, dated June 5,

2006; July 28,2006; and September 1 1,2006;

iv. Connecticut's Responses to Charles J. Abbe's Interrogatories, served

September 29,2006 and November 6,2006;

v. Comecticut's Responses to Jozef Straus's Interrogatories, served September

29,2006 and November 1,2006;

vi. Connecticut's Responses to Kevin Kalkhoven's Interrogatories served

September 29,2006 and November 6,2006.

Connecticut reserves its right to make additional disclosures to reflect information

subsequently acquired through continuing investigation and discovery, including ongoing

depositions and document productions.

3. Connecticut has not yet retained aa expert to perform a formal damage analysis suitable

to form a basis for testimony at trial. Such a damage analysis will be produced to defendants at

the time called for in the Case Management Order.

4. There is no applicable insurance agreement for Connecticut.

5 . Connecticut reserves the right to supplement and amend this Supplemental Initial

Discksure andlor the contents thereof


11/1/06 18:57 FAX 212 818 0477

DATED: November


LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFl? LLP Jonathan M. Plasse Barbara J. Hart Anthony Harwood Michael Stocker Jon Adarns rr

BY: H d / a Anthony Hmood

100 Park Avenue New York, New York 2001 7 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 81 8-0477

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BERMAN DeVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. Christopher T. Heffelfinger

Liaison Counsel


Exhibit N

LabatonSucharow

December 11, 200 6

VIA FACSIMILE

Dirr .l INis) : (212) 907-0873t)iri•cr Pax : (212) 883-7074

;IhZSwoad®bbarun,Con n

Terri Garland, Esq. Howard S. Caro, Esq.Morrison & Foerstcr LLP Heller Ehrman LLP425 Market Street 333 Bush Stree tSan Francisco , California 94105-2482 San Francisco, California 9410 4

Re: JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation, C-02-1486 CW (EDL)

Dear Terri and Howard :

] write in response to Tern's email of Friday, December 8, 2006, proposing A revised schedule for

expert discovery, which we received at 8 ;52 p .m, eastern time, and in response to l-loward', email of

the same date, received at 10 :15 p.m. eastern time. I also write to address your requests that wesupplement intend story responses .

We are in favor of extending the deadlines related to expert discovery, provided that it does not

change the date for submission of summazy judgment motions . Judge Wilken was clear about the

time she needed to decide summary judgment motions when she set the initial schedule, and webelieve your proposal would not leave her adequate time.

We propose instead to extend the deadlines as follows:

Current Schedule

Reports ; 1/8/07

Rebuttals: 2/5/07

Cut-off 3/19/07

Sum. J. 4/13/07

Proposed Extension

1/29/07

2/19/07

3/19/07

4/13/07

Please let mc- know whether this is acceptable to you .

With respect to supplementing responses to interrogatories, we propose to supplement ourresponses to all interrogatories served by all defendants by January 19, 2007, including theintcrrugatories of defendant Anthony Muller . As set forth in my letter to Howard of December 8 ,2006, we need this additional time to assimilate the information obtained though depositions and t o

www,labatorL .corn LARATC1N 5IJI .HAROW & JWU OF LLP 1 100 PARX AVENUE I NEW YORK , NY 10017 I T712-907.0700 1 P -112-KIA-0477 4PM

12/11/2006 11 :48 FAX 12128180477 LABATON SUCHAROf4 LLP Ig 003/00 3

'Perri Garland, [-sq.

Dcccrnber 11, 2006Page 2

incorporate additional documentary evidence we have identified in our continuing analysis of thecast. As you are aware, most of those depositions concluded by December 1, but the deposition ofScott Parker was not concluded until December 5, 2006 and ether, are still Open . We also need thistime in part because of the several motions that require briefing, the impending holidays and thevacations of important members of our team .

We believe this proposal is consistent with our obligation to supplement interrogatory responsesunder Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) . As the advisory committee notes to the 1993 amendments explain,

"Supplemenrarions need not be made as each new item of information is learned but should bemade .st appropriate intervals during the discovery period, and with special promptness as the trialdate approaches ." Sec also Wnl6ersdeij'v. Desrodber.r, 2006 WI.3344762 (D .Me). As we have recently

supplemented our interrogatory responses in early November, and we have just completed a largenumber of depositions which we have to analyze for purposes of supplementing the response, webelieve our proposal is entirely reasonable . In addition, it addresses Howard's concern that he have

the supplemental responses prior to the date for exchanging expert reports . As 1 have previously

informed you both, we would be willing to extend defendants' tithe to move to compel with respect

to the supplemental responses .

Howard, as I stated in my letter of December 8, 2006,1 wanted to get this proposal to you thatafternoon. However, I was unable to do so, as we were waiting for counsel for)DSU's proposal onthe extension of the schedule for expert discovery . 1 know tint is short, so I have addressed this assoon as possible on the next business day following receipt of your email, after discussing theproposal with our team . I also want you to know that I disagree with the statement in your email ofDecember 8 that I was unprepared when I met and conferred with you on December 7 regardingConnecticut's responses to Kevin Kalkhoven's interrogatories .

Very truly yours,

Anthony J . I ia .rwoodOf Counsel

cc: Christopher T . I leffelfinger, Fsy .

L"MtonSucharow

Exhibit O

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joseph J . Tabacco, Jr . (75484)Christopher T . Heffelfinger (118058)BERIVIAN DeVALERIO PEAS E

TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO425 California Street, Suite 2100San Francisco, California 94104-2205Telephone : (415) 433-3200Facsimile : (415) 433-6382.Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff ConnecticulRetirement Plans and Trust Fund s

Jonathan M . PlasseBarbara J . HartAnthony HarwoodMichael StockerJon AdamsLABATON SUCHAROW

& RUDOFF LLP100 Park Avenu eNew York, New York 10017-5563Telephone : (212) 907-0700Facsimile : (212) 818-0477Lead Counsel for Lead Plainfr ff Connecticut RetirementPlans and Trust Funds



OAKLAND DIVISION

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONSECURITIES LITIGATION ,

This Document Relates to : All Actions


RESPONSE TO JDSU'S FIRST SET OFREQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TOPLAINTIFFS OKLAHOMAFIREFIGHTERS PENSION ANDRETIREMENT SYSTEM AND DENNISMCCOOL ;

AND

RESPONSE TO SECOND SET OFREQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO LEADPLAINTIFF CONNECTICUTRETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUSTFUNDS AND PLAINTIFF HOUSTONMUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSIONSYSTEM

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant JDS Uniphase CorporationRESPONDING PARTY: Plainti ffsSET NUMBER : One : Plaintiff-Intervenor Oklahoma Firefighters Pension

and Retirement System and Plaintiff Dennis McCoolTwo: Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust

Funds and Plaintiff Houston Municipal EmployeesPension System

RESPONSE JD U'S RE U ES F R S A I NDUSTER FILE NO. C-02-1486 CW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-)g

RESPONSE

AD2I"ITED .

REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO . 18

During the Class Period, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No, 100, 17 C .F.R. Part

211, 49-50 (Nov . 24, 1999), approving the market value method for assessing impairment ofenterprise-level goodwill in accordance with GAAP and APB No . 17 .

RESPONSE

DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO . 19

The amount of JDSU's goodwill write off for the third quarter of fiscal year 2001 would nothave been materially different whether calculated under the enterprise-le-vel method or underSFAS 121 .

RESPONSE

DENIED .


JDSU's accounting for the goodwill associated with its acquisition of SDL, Inc ., did notartificially inflate the Company's stock price during the Class Period .

RESPONSE

DENIED .

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO .21

The total dollar amount of JDSU's sales to Lucent increased in the first quarter of JDSU'sfiscal year 2001 as compared to the fourth quarter of JDSU's fiscal year 2000 .

RESPONSE

ADMITTED .


JDSU properly deferred a ll $600,000 of revenue related to the E-TEK kit transactionsdescribed in the July 26, 2001 Consulting & Audit Services Summary Report produced atJDSU 0913730 -0913743 .

RESPONSE TO JDSU'S REQUEST

MISTER FILE NO . C-02-1486 CW5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

t1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Paragraph 173 of the COMPLAINT is inaccurate to the extent it alleges that by May or June2000, "in the offsite storage facility [in San Jose], there were fifty pallets of finished productsthat no customer had ordered . "

I I RESPONSE

DENIED . The confidential witness statements in the Second Amended Complaint

accurately reflect information provided to Plaintiffs' counsel at or about the time the SecondAmended Complaint was prepared .

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 5

Paragraph 174 of the COMPLAINT is inaccurate to the extent it alleges that " the largebuild-up of invento ry at JDS in 2000 was a result of mass cance llations by Nortel and othercompanies ."

RESPONSE

DENIED . The confidential witness statements in the Second Amended Complaint

accurately reflect information provided to Plaintiffs ' counsel at or about the time the SecondAmended Complaint was prepared .


Paragraph 174 of the COMPLAINT is inaccurate to the extent it a lleges that "the inventorybuildup [in 2000] was out of proportion with the demand for product , and there was a muchhigher accumulation of both raw mate rial and finished product than there were confirmedorders . "

RESPONSE

DENIED. The confidential witness statements in the Second Amended Complaint

accurately reflect information provided to Plaintiffs' counsel at or about the time the SecondAmended Complaint was prepared .

Dated: November 6, 2006

I\-ASTER FILE NO . C-02-1486 CW

f

Michael W. Stocker

Jonathan M . PlasseBarbara J . HartAnthony HarwoodLABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP100 Park Avenu eNew York, New York 10017(212) 907-0700

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff ConnecticutRetirement Plans and Trust Funds

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1•i

13

14

15

16

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC E

I, Nafi Pelinku, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action .

My business address is 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017 . On November 6, 2006 ,

I served the following documents via electronic mail upon the attorneys listed below :

RESPONSE TO JDSU'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TOPLAINTIFFS OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENTSYSTEM AND DENNIS MCCOOL

AND

2

3

RESPONSE TO SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO LEADPLAINTIFF CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS ANDPLAINTIFF HOUSTON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSION SYSTEM ;

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT CHARLES J . ABBE ' S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS :

CONNECTICUT' S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT KEVIN KALKHOVEN' S FIRSTSET OF INTERROGATORIES .

Howard S . CaroHeller Ehrman LLP333 Bush StreetSan Francsico, CA 94104(415) 772-6268Hcaro(~z.heilerehrman.com

Phillip T . BesirofMorrison & Foerster425 Market StreetSan Francisco , CA 94105(415) [email protected]

Terry GarlandMorrison & Foerster425 Market Stree tSan Francisco . CA 94105(415) 268-752 2TGarland [email protected]

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct .

Executed on November 6 . 2006 .

Nafi Pelinku

In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation 02-CV-01486...

Documents

Transcript of In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation 02-CV-01486...