Rights v. Tellabs Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 02 C 4356
• Citation: 735 F.Supp.2d 856
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD., Chris Broholm, Richard LeBrun, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TELLABS, INC., Michael J. Birck, Richard C. Notebaert, et al., Defendants.

735 F.Supp.2d 856

MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD., Chris Broholm, Richard LeBrun, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.TELLABS, INC., Michael J. Birck, Richard C. Notebaert, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 02 C 4356.

United States District Court,

N.D. Illinois,

Eastern Division.

Aug. 13, 2010.

Carla Fredericks, Richard H. Weiss, Milberg Weiss LLP, Jeffrey Messinger, Leigh Smith, Rolando G. Marquez, Todd S. Kussin, Milberg LLP, Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Stephanie M. Beige, Bernstein, Liebhard & Lipshitz, LLP, New York, NY, Guri Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, Cudahy, WI, Lori Ann Fanning, Marvin Alan Miller, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Chicago, IL, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville, NY, for Plaintiffs.

David F. Graham, James Wallace Ducayet, Jonathan I. Katz, Kathleen Lynn Roach, Melanie Elizabeth Walker, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge:

Before the Court is DefendantsTellabs, Inc.("Tellabs"), Michael J. Birck, Brian J. Jackman, Richard C. Notebaert, and Joan A. Ryan's (collectively "Defendants")Motion for Summary Judgment.Defendants seek summary judgment on each of the remaining claims set forth in PlaintiffsMakor Issues & Rights, Ltd., Chris Broholm, and Richard Lebrun, et al.' s (collectively "Plaintiffs") Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint").For the following reasons, the Court grants in large part and denies in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment and grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion to Strike.

BACKGROUND

I.Procedural History

This case has a long procedural history.In June 2002, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of various individuals and persons who purchased common stock of Defendant Tellabs between December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001 pursuant to § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934("Section 10(b)") and SEC Rule 10b-5,17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5("Rule 10b-5").The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aaand28U.S.C. §§ 1331and1337, and venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).(R. 336-1, ¶ 4.)

Initially, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety, but permitted Plaintiffs to amend.SeeJohnson v. Tellabs, Inc.,262 F.Supp.2d 937, 939(N.D.Ill.2003)( Johnson I ).Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint, which contained additional factual allegations.( SeeR. 63-1;see alsoJohnson v. Tellabs, Inc.,303 F.Supp.2d 941, 945(N.D.Ill.2004)( Johnson II )).After determining that the Complaint failed to properly plead an underlying 10b-5 violation, and reasoning that the remaining allegations were dependent on an underlying 10b-5 violation, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss each count of the Complaint, with prejudice.Johnson II,303 F.Supp.2d at 971.On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed inpart and reversed in part, holding that Plaintiffs sufficiently had pled claims under § 10(b) against Defendants Tellabs and Notebaert and properly had pled control person liability claims under § 20(a) against both Notebaert and Birck.SeeMakor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc.,437 F.3d 588, 603-05(7th Cir.2006)( Makor I ).The Court of Appeals took no position on Plaintiffs' § 20(a) insider trading claim against Defendant Birck.Id. at 605("No party in this litigation has provided more than cursory briefing of this issue, and therefore we take no position on its resolution, leaving it for further factual and legal development during the course of the litigation."), modified by2006 U.S.App. LEXIS 17252(7th Cir.2006).The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of the scienter requirement of a § 10(b) claim and remanded the case for further review consistent with the Supreme Court's clarifications.Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,551 U.S. 308, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2509, 168 L.Ed.2d 179(2007)( Makor II ).On remand from the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit adhered to its prior decision in Makor I and remanded the case to this Court.Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs Inc.,513 F.3d 702, 705(7th Cir.2008)( Makor III ).

On February 25, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Status Report identifying their positions regarding the remaining claims and defenses in the case.The parties reported that, as it currently stood, the Complaint alleged: (i)Section 10(b)andRule 10b-5 claims against Notebaert and Tellabs, (ii)Section 20(a) control person liability claims against Notebaert, Birck, Jackman, and Ryan, and (iii)Section 20(a) insider trading claims against Birck.The parties agreed that the four categories of alleged misrepresentations that remained at issue in the lawsuit were: (i) statements regarding Tellabs's financial results for fourth quarter 2000 and full year 2000, (ii) statements regarding the TITAN 5500, (iii) statements regarding the TITAN 6500 system, and (iv) Tellabs's projections of earnings and revenues during 2001.(R. 149-1, Joint Status Reportat 2-4.)

On May 23, 2008, after Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' § 20(a) claim for insider trading against Birck for failure to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 78t-1(a).SeeMakor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs Inc.,2008 WL 2178150, *2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41539, *7(N.D.Ill.May 23, 2008).On June 17, 2008, Defendants filed their answer and defenses to the Complaint.(R. 195-1.)On February 23, 2009, 256 F.R.D. 586(N.D.Ill.2009), the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel.(R. 256-1, Memorandum Opinion and Order.)The Court entered an order certifying a class consisting of: "All persons who purchased the common stock of Defendant Tellabs during the period from December 11, 2000 through June 19, 2001, inclusive (the 'Class Period').Excluded from the Class are Defendants; the subsidiaries and affiliates of Tellabs; the officers and directors of Tellabs or its subsidiaries or affiliates, at all relevant times; members of the immediate family of any excluded person; the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any excluded person; and any entity in which any excluded person has or had a controlling interest."Id. at 26.The Court also appointed Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4.Chris Broholm, Richard LeBrun, David Leehey and Patricia Morris(now deceased) are additional named Plaintiffs.The named Defendants are Tellabs, Michael J. Birck, Richard C. Notebaert, Brian Jackman and Joan Ryan.

On October 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intent Not to Pursue Certain Allegations Further in this Action ("Notice of Intent").(R. 284-1, Notice of Intent.)Plaintiffs indicated their intention not to pursue certain allegations of misrepresentation based on statements concerning the TITAN 6500 under § 10(b)andRule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.Id. at 1-2.On October 22, 2009, Defendants moved the Court to dismiss all allegations concerning allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the TITAN 6500 and to enter judgment in their favor.(R. 288-1, Motion to Dismiss.)The Court found that Defendants failed to establish that dismissal and judgment were warranted on the TITAN 6500 claims, but held that Plaintiffs were barred from pursuing the § 10(b) allegations of misrepresentation concerning the TITAN 6500.(R. 311-1, Minute Entry, p. 3.)

As a result of this procedural history, three categories of alleged misrepresentations remain at issue in this lawsuit: (i) statements regarding Tellabs's financial results for fourth quarter 2000 and full year 2000, (ii) statements regarding the TITAN 5500, and (iii) Tellabs's projections of earnings and revenues during 2001.Defendants now seek summary judgment on each of these claims contained in the Complaint.

II.Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

When determining summary judgment motions, the Court derives the background facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements.Specifically, Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence."Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs.,233 F.3d 524, 527(7th Cir.2000).LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue."Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc.,559 F.3d 625, 632(7th Cir.2009)."The opposing party is required to file 'a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.' "Id.(citing N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)).In addition, LocalRule 56.1(b)(3)(C) requires the nonmoving party to present a separate statement of additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment.SeeCiomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc.,527 F.3d 635, 643-44(7th Cir.2008).Pursuant to the Local Rules, the Court will not consider any additional facts proposed in the nonmoving party's LocalRule 56.1(b)(3)(B) Response, but instead must rely on the nonmovant's LocalRule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional facts when making factual determinations.Seeid. at 643;Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C.,401 F.3d 803, 809(7th Cir.2005)("Local Rule 56.1 requires specifically that a litigant seeking to oppose a motion for summary judgment file a response that contains a separate 'statement ... of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment.' ")(internal citation omitted).

Moreover, the purpose of Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual...