In re Riverbed Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Submitted: July 14, 2015
Peter B. Andrews, Esquire Craig J. Springer, Esquire
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire Brian D. Long, Esquire Gina M. Sera, Esquire Jeremy J. Riley, Esquire Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
William M. Lafferty, Esquire Ryan D. Stottmann, Esquire Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Joseph Christensen, Esquire Joseph Christensen P.A.
Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, Esquire Bradley D. Sorrels, Esquire Ian Liston, Esquire Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
I have reviewed the Motion to Compel the Deposition of Sean J. Griffith, together with Mr. Griffith's response to that Motion.
Mr. Griffith has filed an objection to a proposed settlement in this matter. The Plaintiffs seek to depose him concerning his objections. They contend that Mr. Griffith does not have standing and purport to seek a deposition on that ground. However, Mr. Griffith's standing is a purely legal issue based on the date of acquisition of his stock; no further evidence-gathering on this issue is relevant to Mr. Griffith's objection.
Next, Plaintiffs seek to explore the bases for Mr. Griffith's legal opinions regarding the settlement. Mr. Griffith's opinions, however, speak for themselves; again, there is no relevant discovery identified in the Motion to Compel.
Finally, I note that the objection is to be heard, together with the proposed settlement, on July 27, 2015. Given this schedule, the inconvenience and expense of further discovery regarding the objection cannot be justified.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel the Deposition of Sean J. Griffith is DENIED. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sam Glasscock III, Vice ...