LabatonSucharow

JON ADAM S

Direct Dial : (212) 907-0866Direct Fax : (212) 883-706 6

jadams@labaton .co m

October 7, 2005

By Facsimile and U.S. Mai l

Hon. Elizabeth D . LaporteUnited States Magistrate JudgeUnited States District CourtNorthern District of CaliforniaUnited States Courthouse450 Golden Gate Avenu eSan Francisco, California 9410 2

Re : In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities LitigationNo. C 02-1486 CW (EDL)

Dear Magistrate Judge Laporte :

We are writing further to Your Order of September 7, 2005, providing that we may moveon four days notice for an order that our electronic discovery vendor receive the backup tapes ofthe emails to and from recipients of the August 18, 2000 email from Thomas Pitre ("Pitr eemail") stating a "major disconnect" existed between forecasted demand and the growth curve .Defendants have failed to comply, and by this letter brief Lead Plaintiff respectfully moves .

It is now more than 7 months since Lead Plaintiff s First Request for Production ofDocuments . As this Court previously recognized, Defendants have been hiding the ball anddragging their feet on the highly relevant information . Defendants have not accounted for manymonths that passed following the document demand without any production. It is not proper forDefendants to have stalled (on what is only the first document demand) for 7 months, and forthem now to seek to delay partial productions of partial responses to the document demand out to8 and 9 months despite being under explicit order to produce .

Defendants notified Lead Counsel on the last day for production, October 4, 2005, thattheir production of emails to and from Pitre email recipients would be drastically incomplete .

www.labaton . com LABATON 5UCHAROW & RUDOPF LLP J 100 PARK AVENUE I NEW YORK , NY 10017 ~ 'r 212-907-0700 1 F 212 - 818-0477

Hon. Elizabeth D . LaporteUnited States Magistrate JudgeOctober 7, 200 5Page 2

The meet and confer that day yielded an impasse, with Defendants alleging they could only focuson one task at a time and therefore would be dilatory with respect to all other categories ofdocuments, many of which had been compelled by the Court . Defendants offered by phone tocomplete production of one and only one of the following categories by mid-November : 1)emails to and from Pitre email recipients ; 2) "core documents" relating to Individual DefendantsKalkhoven, Straus, Abbe, Muller, and four other somewhat unknown individuals ; or 3) theremainder of the compelled documents reflecting orders over a $1 million ; diaries, appointmentcalendars, and telephone logs ; information relevant to fraud allegations in the personnel files ofDefendants ; documents concerning stock purchases by Bruce Day, Robert Enos, and CasimirSkrzypczak; and information concerning former accounting and finance employees .

Lead Plaintiff declined Defendants' proposal that they take until mid-November to finishthe production ordered by October 4, particularly because it was contingent on ceasing all otherproduction . Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff hereby requests that Defendants provide to LeadPlaintiffs electronic discovery vendor the restored emails of Pitre email recipients in their nativeformat from the backup tapes, within 7 days of the Court's order . The listed Pitre emailrecipients are Rick Banjinski, Lillian Bell, Maggi Bonnah, Phil Chateauvert, Lorenzo Crivellari,Carol Davis, Orlando Estezo, Cathy Fawcett, Don Goodwin, Eric Latreille, David Lightfoot,Rick MacMillan, Douglas McNairn, Bruce Reinhardt, Bob Russel, Bonnie Sperry, Rick Trifuno,Kim White, Jeff Whitelock, Steve Young . (Ex. A). The recipients of the Pitre email also includethe unidentified "OPSS" list . Based on correspondence from Philip Besirof explicitlymentioning Pitre email recipients, Lead Plaintiff can state that the following 12 individuals areon the "OPSS" list : Howard Burleigh, Nyuen Chong, Bob Durance, Carol Ann Graves, JamieHorton, Ross MacDonald, Colin McCleery, Dale Reid, Michael Tremblay, Melissa Muirhead,Fred Schafer, Alan Shayanpour . However, Mr . Besirof represented that there are 37 Pitre emailrecipients . (Ex. B, p .3) . Subtracting the 20 listed names leave 17 people for the OPSS list, butonly 12 appear piecemeal in correspondence . Mr. Besirof has refused to disclose the completeOPSS list despite admitting he has one, proposing that Lead Plaintiff make substantial andunrelated concessions in exchange for this. Lead Plaintiff requests the backup tapes for the 5remaining Pitre email recipients that Defendants will not identify by name, or, if the backu ptapes have already been restored, Lead Plaintiff requests they be produced in their restored nativeformat .

Defendants' unjustified delay and failure to comply with the Order of this Courtconstitutes a waiver of prior review for privilege and/or responsiveness before producing thetapes . See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co . v. United States District Court for theDistrict of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir . 2005). Providing the tapes to Lead Plaintiff willalso free Defendants to produce what they have labeled "core documents" in advance ofmediation.

LabatonSucharow

-ow

Hon. Elizabeth D . LaporteUnited States Magistrate JudgeOctober 7, 200 5Page 3

Second, Defendants' production fails to comply with the Court's Order becauseDefendants deleted data from the emails to and from the Pitre email recipients by convertingthem into PDF and TIFF files . Deleted data includes blind carbon copies, calendar andappointment entries, and identifying data that is essential to trace various email messages aboutdemand changes leading up to and following the Pitre email . (Caruso Aff. ¶ 6, Ex . Q . Counselfor both parties met and conferred, but Defendants have refused to produce this deleted data andprovide the ernails in the original native format . The PDF and TIFF formats Defendants haveselected use much more memory and are cumbersome and difficult to search . (Caruso Aff. 1 5).Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests an order that Defendants comply with the September 7, 2005Order by producing the emails in their full, native format . See In re Verisign, Inc . Sec. Litig.,No. C 02-02270 JW, 2004 WL 2445243, *1 (N.D. Cal . Mar. 10, 2004) (affirming MagistrateJudge Patricia Trumbull that "[p]roduction of TIFF version alone is not sufficient," and that"[t]he electronic version must include metadata as well as be searchable ."); id., at *3("documents need only be produced in their native format, i .e ., in the format that they werestored during Defendants' usual course of business .") ; Williams v. Sprint/United ManagementCo., No . 03-2200-JWL-DJW, 2005 WL 2401626, at *11 (D . Kan. Sept . 29, 2005) (" . . .when aparty is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are maintained in the ordinary course ofbusiness, the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata . . .") .If any additional expense may be incurred Lead Plaintiff requests that Defendants be prohibitedfrom attempting to bill Lead Plaintiff, since any expenses already borne are in excess of thoseassociated with simply providing the data in its original, native format . (Caruso Aff. ¶ 7). LeadPlaintiff opened the discussion on the format for producing electronic data over 4 months ago,back on May 31, 2005, (Ex . D), and endeavored to discuss format many times since then, finallyrequesting explicitly multiple times that data be produced in native format . (E.g., Ex . E) .Defendants justified weeks or months of delay by saying they were searching for an electronicvendor due to problems with their former vendor . Remarkably, they now advise that the vendorthey selected does not produce in native format, an oddity resulting from their own selectiondespite notice that data should be produced as it is stored, in native format . Defendants made aunilateral decision to produce in PDF of TIF, ignoring repeated requests that they produce innative format and ignoring the detailed information provided to them in meet and confers aboutthe importance of producing in native format .

Third, Defendants have not agreed to a time for producing emails to and from theRedbook team . Under the Court's Order of September 7, 2005, Lead Plaintiff therefore movesfor an Order that these backup tapes be provided to its electronic discovery vendor . Defendantssimilarly waived claims of responsiveness and privilege review by failing to comply with theCourt's order. There are at least 32 Redbook team members who are not listed on the Pitre emailor currently known to be on the OPSS list, according to an email dated June 20, 2000 .1 (Ex. F) .Those individuals are : Fady Abdul-Nour, Paul Bebee, Steve Bonham, Rick Crook, Heather d e

' Defendants know the names of the other 5 individuals on the OPSS list, but refuse to tell Lead Plaintiff .

LabatonSucharow

Hon. Elizabeth D . LaporteUnited States Magistrate JudgeOctober 7, 200 5Page 4

Haan, Torbert Friis, Maria Fudakowski, Lindsay Fyfe, Sofia Gabor, Ron Gervais, Jo-Ann Gore,Jamie Horton, Robert Jensen, Lester Lamarche, Mario Leduc, Jocelyn McKay, Alisdair McLean,Randall North, Michael Pastor, Roger Patterson, Katherine Payne, Graham Pearce, Henr yPostolek, Bob Reid, Karen Roger, Alan Shayanpour, Zbig Sobiesiak, Robert Taylor, RobertTheriault, Ray Thomas, and Yves Tremblay.

Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests an order that Defendants : (1) provide innative format the restored email of the Pitre email recipients to Lead Plaintiffs electronicdiscovery vendor ; (2) produce in native format all email previously produced as PDF or TIFFfiles; and (3) provide the backup tapes of the Redbook team emails to Lead Plaintiff .

Respectfully submitted ,

on Adams

cc: Terri Garland, Esq .Howard Caro, Esq.Christopher T . Heffelfinger, Esq .

LabatonSucharow

EXHIB IT A

7 Thomas Pitrs :OS/1$12000-04 :53-PNE

To: OPSScc. Flick BajinskiIHO/JDS FITEL Inc0JDS FITEL Inc. Carol DavISIHOJJDS FITEL 1nc0JDS FITEL Inc, Eric

Latreille/HQ/JDS FITEL IncOJDS FITEL Inc, Steve Young/HQ/JDS FITEL IncOJDS FITEL Inc, KimWhitefHQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Douglas McNaim/HQIJDS FITEL IncOJDS FITEL Inc, OrlandoEstezoll-IO/JDS FITEL Inc©JDS FITEL Inc, Don Goodwin/HQJJDS FITEL IncOJDS FITEL Inc, BobRusseiVHOiJDS FITEL Inc©JDS FITEL Inc. Bruce Reinhardt/HQIJDS FITEL Inc0JDS FfTEL Inc . PhilChaleauvertll-IQJJDS FITEL IncQJDS FITEL. Inc, Bonnie Sperry/HCVJDS FITEL IncQJDS FITEL Inc . JeffWhitelock/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Lorenzo CrivellarifHQ/JDS FITEL Inc*JDS FITEL Inc .Lillian Be11IHQJJDS FITEL Inc®JDS FITEL Inc, Cathy Fawcett HQ/JDS FrrEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, MaggiBonnah/HQ/JDS FITEL incOJDS FITEL Inc . Rick TritunovIHQJJDS FITEL IncOJDS FITEL Inc, RickMacMillan/HO/MS FITEL Inc0JDS FITEL Inc, David LlghtfooVWQIJDS FITEL IncOJDS FITEL Inc

Subject: (AedBook) Sales and Operations Plannin g

Our weekly Thursday Pa dbook meeting proved to be an enlightening experience . Considering all therecent demand changes over the past few weeks, we are still on track to finish the Redbooksubmission prior to the quarter end, The forecasting group has committed to publishing a'revisedforecast", first thing Monday . This 'revised forecast' will have changes relating to the Nortel andLucent changes, as well as others . The Supply Chain has been instructed to consider the "netchanges", and where large deltas to the last forecast exist, use that signal as their "statement ofdemand" . Where the delta is not so great, use Management judgement as to which signal to process .

I have noticed through various conversations with Redbook folks that a major disconnect existsbetween future forecasted demand and our growth curve . It seems that we have a divergencebetween our overarching growth of 25 % QTR/QTR and the forecast demand out in Q3 and Q4 . Sostated:nleinly the forecast out in 03 and 04 is substantially less than our pro-liected arowth curve .

The importance of identi Ong a sources of demand cannot be over emphasized .Ca the maf erra acrd capacity are to be planned effectively, a//sources of demand must beidentified. For rxarrrpfe spare parts, inventory strategies, new products, distribution inventories,and tnanyothers. When all sources of demand have been realized , it is only then that a realistic plancan be developed to achieve the companies' goals, while better manaaino production, inventories an d

Best regards;

Thomas 6. Pi treManager, Demand Management,TDS Uniphrtse, FPF(613)727-1304 x2648

EXHIBIT B

SEP s '05 01 :35PM MOFO 34 COPY CENTER

lORRISON

September 30, 2005

I POERSTE R

By Fax (212-818 -0477) & U.S. Mail

Anthony J . Harwood, Esq.Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP100 Park AvenueNew York, Now Y ork 10017

425 MARKET STREET

SAN FRANCISCO

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482

TNLEI' MONE :415.2688,70FACE MILE 415 .268 .752 2

WWW,MOFO .COb%

Re: In re JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation,Master File No, 02-1486 CW (EDL)

Dear Tony :

P . 2

MORRISON AL FGEIAr1& Lt 9

NL•W YORE, SAX f1!AYC[8CC,

LOS ANGELES . PALO ALTO ,

SAN DIEGO, WAEHINC76N, A . C

P99VE&, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,

ORANGt COUXTY, SACRAMENTO,-ALNVT ORES [, CpW URY GTTY

TOKYO, LONDON. EII11NG,

SHANGHAI, HONG KONG,

SKNCAPQ%tg, 1RUSSEL E

Writer's Direct Contact

415/265.6091 .

I write further to our,telephone meet and confer of September 27, 2005 . As you know, wespoke for well over two hours . This letter addresses certain aspects of our conversation, andis not intended to memorialize our entire discussion ,

In response to JDSU's August 1, 2005 proposal regarding various methods of producing datafrom the Oracle database, Lead Counsel suggested a different approach . Specifically, LeadCounsel proposed an on-site inspection at JDSU's San Jose facility, In addition, LeadCounsel requested that JDSU make available a JDSU technologist with administrative-levelaccess to JDSU's electronic databases . Lead Counsel also requested that JDSU retain andmake available a KPMG consultant who would provide a tutorial on JDSU's various legacyfinancial systems . We agreed to respond to this request by Tuesday, October 4, 2005 .

Lead Counsel stated that such a meeting might streamline future 30(b)(6) depositions .Nevertheless, you stated that it would not affect the 30(b)(6) depositions that Lead Plaintiffseeks to take regarding electronic data at the Company's Bloomfield, West Trenton, andHorsham facilities, and that Lead Plaintiff nevertheless sought to proceed with thosedepositions .

The Company has already expended significant time and energy in preparing its 30(b)(6)deponents regarding electronic data located in San Jose, Ottawa, and Santa Rosa, Webelieve that continued 30(b)(6) depositions regarding electronic data would be inefficient,unproductive, and would provide diminishing returns for Lead Plaintiff, Accordingly, wepropose that Lead Plaintiff complete its outstanding 30(b)(6) topics by writteninterrogatories. We believe that this proposal will benefit both parties . First, it will allow the

sf-2008746

r dI ray 01 :35PM Ii0E0 34 COPY CENTER P . 3

Ni D RRISON I FOTERSTE R

Anthony J . Harwood, Esq .September 30, 2005Page Two

Company the opportunity to provide more complete and comprehensive responses to LeadPlaintiff's outstanding questions , rather than merely testing the memory of a single deponent .Second, it will avoid the parties crisscrossing North America in an effort to respond to LeadPlaintiff's fragmented and overbroad 3 0(b)(6) notice, which seeks testimony regardingmultiple, geographically-diverse sites. Moreover, several of the JDSU sites have been closedor sold by the Company ( including Horsham and West Trenton ), and the Company does nothave a current employee with comprehensive knowledge of electronic data at, those sites .Written deposition questions will allow the Company to gather the necessary facts, andprovide it to Lead Plaintiff in an efficient and consolidated rr nnner .

To the extent Lead Plaintiff nevertheless seeks a live 30(b)(6) deposition with regard toelectronic data at the Company ' s Bloomfield faci lity, we agree to make Christopher Lawsonavailable during the week of October 10 , 2005 . (Mr. Lawson 's availability has been affectedby health issues including recent surgery , but we believe he will be available to testify byOctober 10. )

If our proposal regarding additional 30(b)(6) depositions is not acceptable to Lead Plaintiff.,please provide a counterproposal by Tuesday, October 4, 2005 . If Lead Plaintiff is unwillingto compromise, JDSU will move for a protective order . If a motion for protective orderbecomes necessary, we propose the following briefing schedule ,

JDSU's Opening Brief October 10

Lead Plaintiffs Opposition Brief October 14

JDSU's Reply Brief October 1 8

Hearing October 21 (or at Judge Laporte' s earliestconvenience thereafter.)

If necessary, please let us know by Tuesday, October 4 if this schedule is acceptable to LeadPlaintiff.

With regard to Lead Plaintiff's deposition of Jim Walker (as a 30(b)(6) deponent), LeadCounsel proposed that any gaps in his knowledge of legacy financial systems be addressedby written questions and responses in lieu of live deposition testimony . Having consideredthat proposal, we agree that written questions would be a superior method for addressingLead Plaintiff's remaining technical questions . Rather than testing Mr. Walker's memory,written questions will allow the Company to gather the data and provide a more completeresponse to Lead Plaintiff's outstanding questions .

Lead Counsel inquired about Kenneth Cameron's deposition testimony (as a 30(b)(6)deponent) that Thomas Pitre had "deleted" email from his computer . We informed you that

la f 2OO8746

bEH 30 '05 01 :36PM*1 MOFO 34 COPY CENTER P . 4

MORRISQN I FOTRSTE R

Anthony J . Harwood, Esq .September 30, 2005Page Three

Mr. Pitre's deletion of email from his inbox or his desktop would not erase that data fromback-up tapes that were made by the Company in the ordinary course of business . Weconfirmed that we have already produced those emails stored on back-up tapes to LeadPlaintiff.

Lead Counsel inquired whether the Company had withheld documents from the productionof Thomas Pitre's email on the basis of the attorney-client privilege . This confirms that wedid not withhold documents from that production on the basis of privilege .

We also discussed Lead Plaintif 's request that the Company produce the Pitre emailrecipients's email in native format . We had informed you on our last call that (1) ourdiscovery vendor does not produce email in native format, and (2) we are not reviewingemail in native format . We informed you that this would require the Company to retain . yetanother electronic discovery vendor, We do not believe that Lead Plaintiff has met itsburden of establishing a need for the production of all emails in native format . Lead Plaintiffhas stated that obtaining email in native format will allow it to determine whether certainfunctions were used on emails, such as "set for follow-up," "flagged," and "meetingrequest ." We do not believe that those features justify the burden and expense of producingall emails in native format . We will agree, however, to consider providing emails to LeadPlaintiff in native format on a case-by-ease basis . For instance, we will produce theAugust 18, 2000 Pitre email to Lead Plaintiff in native format . If this proposal is notacceptable to Lead Plaintiff please make a counter-ptoposal, or JDSU will move for aprotective order on this issue on the same schedule as described above .

With regard to board minutes that reflect the presence of certain financial advisors, we arestill researching the facts underlying those meetings, and will respond to you with ourposition by Friday, October 7, 2005 .

We also discussed Lead Counsel's position that there may be members of the "Redbookteam" in addition to the 37 Pitre email recipients. (This topic was also addressed n LeadCounsel's September 14 letter) In that letter, you mention the recipients of a "June 20, 2000email from Mr. Pitre," "as well as possibly others ." We informed you that we are not awareof any formal group within the Company called the "Redbook team," We also informed youthat, throughout this litigation, both parties have construed the phrase "Redbook team" tomean the recipients of Mr, Pitre's August 18, 2000 email (the "Pitre email"), This isconsistent with Paragraph 19 of Lead Plaintiffs Second Amended Consolidated Complaintand our July 15, 2005 correspondence to Lead Counsel .

We informed you that the June 20, 2000 email from Mr, Pitre was sent to approximately 27custodians who were not also recipients of the Pitre, email . We strongly suggested that,rather than request that the Company review the emails of those additional 27 custodians ,

sf-2008746

SEP 30 '05 01 :36PM MQFO 34 COPY CENTER P .5

MORRTSON I `OERSTE R

Anthony J . Harwood, Esq .September 30, 200 5Page Four

which will likely consist of a million or more pages, with little or no relevance, Lead Counselfocus on reviewing documents of greater probative value . In light of the upcomingmediation, we suggested that it would be more productive if we next reviewed coredocuments, rather than continue to review emails that do not reflect a Company-wideforecast of demand, and that have only marginal relevance to the allegations in thecomplaint . Lead Counsel agreed to consider this proposal .

We also discussed the electronic search terms that we first proposed three weeks ago, onSeptember 9 . Although Lead Counsel's September 14 letter stated that Lead Counsel wouldrespond to our proposed list of search terms "as quickly as possible," we have still notreceived a substantive response on that topic. During our call, Lead Counsel stated itsposition that electronic search tenons are not a substitute for a manual review . We informedyou that the use of electronic search terms would necessarily accelerate our review andproduction of documents . Specifically, we discussed that we are currently reviewing morethan one million pages of documents vv'ith exceptionally low rates of responsiveness . Theprocess has been expensive, unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily time-consuming . On thecall, you also provided two additional search terms, °°discorwect" and "delta," which werenot included on our proposed list . We discussed the possibility of using our proposed searchterms, with Lead Plaintiff reserving its right to later seek a broader review of the ernails .You agreed to consider that concept and provide us with a response .

We also asked you if you could confirm the continued 30(b)(6) deposition of Lead Plaintiffduring the week of October 3, 2005, as we proposed in our letter September 19, 2005 letter .Lead Counsel indicated that it would not make Lead Plaintiff available for a further 30(b)(6)deposition during that week, or at any other time . Lead Counsel indicated that JDSU shouldinstead propound written interrogatories on Lead Plaintiff in lieu of live depositio ntestimony. With regard to damages, Lead Counsel stated that Lead Plaintiff has noinformation other than from communications with counsel and expert consultants .

Finally, we questioned Lead Counsel's motives for making various demands on theCompany in the week before the October 4, 2005 production of the Pitre email recipients .Lead Counsel stated that the deadlines it sought to impose were not for the purpose ofhindering our October 4 production date .

sf 2oas746

bt.r JU ' 0 ~> e1 ; dbHM MUh U d4 WHY LLN I to

M ORRISON I VOERSTB R

Anthony J. Harwood, Esq.September 30, 2005Page Five

We await your responses to our various proposals .

Very truly yours,

e-j~ %u,",

Philip T . Besi rof

P. 6

sf 2OQS746

EXHIBIT C

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, California 94104-2205Telephone: (415) 433-3200Facsimile : (415) 433-638 2

Liaison Counsel for Lead PlaintiffConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Fund s

Barbara J . HartJonathan M. PlasseAnthony HarwoodJon AdamsGOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF

& SUCHAROW LLP100 Park Avenu eNew York, New York 10017-5563Telephone: (212) 907-0700Facsimile : (212) 818-047 7

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff ConnecticutRetirement Plans and Trust Funds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONSECURITIES LITIGATION

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

This Document Relates to : All Actions Class Action

DECLARATION OF JOE CARUSO

Nu . C 02- 1 486 CW: AFFIDAVIT OF JOE CARUSO

I, JOSEPH CARUSO, declare as follows pursuant to 28 .S .C. l 746:

1 . I ani the director of Global. Digital Forensics, and I have 18 years of

experience in electronic discovery expertise. I have become familiar with electronic systems

used by JDS Uniphase because 1 was present at the two 30(b)(6) depositions of JDS Uniphase

witnessesthat'l ave been conducted to date .

2 The emails from Pitre and the Titre .mail recipients exist originally in

"native" form .

3. Defendants converted the above-referenced emails from native form to

16

17

is

19

20

21

22

23 .

24

25

26

27 1 l

28

PDF or TIFF form. This practice deletes some data and makes the remainder less accessible :

4. Defendants allege that their vendor does not. produce in native form, which

is highly unusual. and lacking in credibil ity because a vendor need only copy the native data.

This practice does not comport with the accepted standard iii the electron v . data is dusti-y .

5. PDF and TIFF forms are cumbersome and difficult to search . and they Us

m u& more : amemory, while data in native form is far more accessible .

6. Defendants' conversion from native t PDF or TIFF form deleted

significant data from every email message , including blind carbon copies, calendar and

appointment entries , and identification data that is necessary to trace an entail and locate all thos e

who received it directly or by forwarding .

7. The least expensive and most efficient : way to produce email data is in

native form because it is stored that way .

I declare under penalty of perjury under the : laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct . Executed at New York, New:York oii October 7 .2005 .

Joseph Caruso

EXHIBIT D

G L R S

GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LL P

May 31, 2005

VIA FACSIMILE 415-268-7522

Alison M. Tucher, Esq .Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street .San Francisco, California

Re:

Dear Alison :

94105-248 2

In Re: JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation

-r, J .y.~}~ i l eaf

BARBARA J . HARTPARTNE R

Direct Dial : (212) 907-0862Direct Fax : (212) 883-7062

bhart @alrslaw .com

We are writing in regards to economizing the document production in this case . Havedocuments been scanned or are they otherwise electronically available? Where the documentsare already scanned we would like to have the electronic versions. Where documents originallyappear in electronic form we would similarly like the electronic versions .

During conversations with Terri regarding preservation of information in light of the selloff of computers, Terri stated that the computers were backed up to tapes prior to sale . Pleaseadvise us as to the tape format so that we can most economically receive copies of the storedinformation .

Very truly yours,

Barb a J . Hart

cc: Chris Heffelfinger, Esq .

BJH:js

100 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017-5563 * TEL : 212 .907 .0700 FAx: 212.818 .0477WWW .GLRSLAW .CO M

40*-

EXHIBIT E

(:::GL R S

GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LL P

September 2, 2005

VIA FACSIMILE 415-268-752 2

Terri A. Garland, Esq .Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Stree tSan Francisco, California 94105-248 2

Re: In Re: JDS Uniphase Securities Litigatio n

Dear Terri :

JON ADAM S

Direct Dial : (212) 907-0866Direct Fax : (212) 883-7066

9adamsMdrslaw.com

I am writing further to your August 1, 2005 letter regarding the form for the production ofelectronic data. We will have a complete response for you after the 30(b)(6) deposition we areconducting next week, but until then would like to have emails in native format . In particular,please advise when we will be receiving the August 18, 2000 Pitre email in native format .

Very truly yours ,

on ams

100 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK , NY 10017-5563 • TEL: 212 .907.0700 FAX: 212 .818 .0477WWW .GLRSLAW . CO M

.ao•

EXHIBIT F

From : Rick Bajinski on 07/05/2000 10 :37 AM

To: Thomas Pitre/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inccc :Subject: Redbook and Approved Head Coun t

Thomas,As you can probably guess, I'm trying to get caught up from taking a weeks vacation . I don't know

if Ron has already responded .

The spreadsheets that Circ . I Hyb . l Isol . use, does a calculation based on a output per person from theDemand/Supply Worksheet " to the " Headcount Worksheet " allowing for the short weeks . So theRedbook volume and people requirements tie together .

Product Red book Q1-01 total commi tCirculators 8870Hybrids 19600Isolators 54190

We have added OANCorvis increases ( stretch targets )

2155056044

The OA increases were not added to the Redbook submission . We're still entertaining volumes for theNortel project as Mario mentioned today at the predictability meeting . That would mean more Circulatorsas well .

If we need to resubmit please advise .

ThanksRick

Forwarded by Rick Bajinski/HQJJDS FITEL Inc on 07/0512000 01 :26 PM

I Thomas Pitre 06/30/2000 03:45 PM

L_JTo: Fady Abdul-Nour/HQ1JDS FITEL lnc@JDS FITEL Inc, Paul Bebee/HQ1JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc,

Rick Bajinski/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Alan ShayanpourlHQlJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc,Randall North/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Ron Gervais/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, DonGoodwin/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Carol DavisIHQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, RogerPattersonhHQ1JDS FITEL lnc@JDS FITEL Inc, Graham Pearce-Karen Roger@JDS FITEL Inc, ThomasPitre/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Michael Pastor/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, RossMacDonald/HQ1JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Zbig Sobiesiak/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, MariaFudakowski/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Maggi Bonnah/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc,Melissa Muirhead/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Phil Chateauvert/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITELInc, Jamie Horton/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Mario Leduc/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc,Eric Latreille/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Yves Tremblay/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, RayThomas/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Kim White/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, BruceReinhardt/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Jim Wright/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, SteveYoung/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Jocelyn McKay1HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, TorbenFriis-Jo-Ann Gowe@JDS FITEL Inc, Bob Russell/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, RobertTheriaultlHQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Robert Taylor/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, BobReid/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Dale Reid-Darlene O'Hearn@JDS FITEL Inc, NyuenChong/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Robert Jensen/HQ/JDS FiTEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, SofiaGabor/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Alisdair McLean/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, HenryPostoleklHQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Rick Crook/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, LesterLamarche/HQIJDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Lindsay Fyfe/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, OrlandoEstezolHQIJDS.FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Bob Durance-Heather de Haan@JDS FITEL Inc, SteveBonham/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL In c

cc: Katherine Payne/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL IncSubject : Redbook and Approved Head Count

To The Redbook Tea m

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

PURSUANT TO

INTERIM AGREEMENT JDSU 0024177