Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128531
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- LP sued MM1, Merrill Lynch Defendants, and DBSI for securities violations; MDL transfer left LP’s claims against MM1 and DBSI in this district.
- Judge White previously addressed related ARS issues and ordered discovery guidance; LP’s FAC was superseded by the SAC in 2011–2012 proceedings.
- LP and DBSI submitted two discovery letters on August 9, 2012 and a third letter on September 6, 2012 seeking relief from discovery disputes; the court treated these as suitable for determination without oral argument.
- The ARS market collapse involved DBSI’s role as sole broker-dealer and market-maker placing “support bids,” contributing to liquidity illusions and subsequent market breakdown; SEC actions and related disclosures shaped the factual backdrop.
- The court denied DBSI’s request to quash LP’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and to redesignate documents, and granted LP’s obligation to respond to DBSI’s contention interrogatories within seven days of DBSI’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 30(b)(6) deposition scope and necessity | LP seeks DBSI corporate testimony on 19 topics; needed to bind DBSI’s position. | DBSI argues topics are duplicative and burdensome beyond existing witness testimony; prefer interrogatories. | DENIED: deposition topics deemed non-duplicative and required for corporate testimony. |
| Confidentiality designations under the SPO | LP’s documents designated as Confidential or AEO should be reevaluated for disclosure risk. | DBSI argues LP over-designates to protect sensitive information; DBSI needs access for business decisions. | DENIED: LP’s AEO designations upheld; Confidentiality balanced with disclosure controls. |
| Timing of responses to contention interrogatories | Responses should be delayed due to remaining discovery; premature otherwise. | Responses should be prompt, within five days, to keep discovery timely. | GRANTED IN PART: LP must respond within 7 days after DBSI’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 216 F.R.D. 168 (D.D.C. 2003) (describes limits on 30(b)(6) deposition scope and use of contentions)
- Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance, 125 F.R.D. 121 (M.D.N.C. 1989) (cannot respond to 30(b)(6) deposition via written interrogatories)
- In re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation, 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (contention interrogatories context and scope)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec, Inc., 268 F.R.D. 255 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (supports limited use of deposition for factual bases in contentious areas)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., No. 99-CV-4304, 2004 WL 739959 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (illustrates limits on patent-related 30(b)(6) testimony; not binding here)