In re Riverbed Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: July 14, 2015
• Docket: CA 10484-VCG
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCOCK 111 STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: July 14, 2015 Date Decided: July 14, 2015

Peter B. Andrews, Esquire Joseph Christensen, Esquire

Craig J. Springer, Esquire Joseph Christensen PA.

3801 Kennett Pike 921 N. Orange Street

Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19801

Wilmington, DE 19807

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, Esquire Brian D. Long, Esquire Bradley D. Sorrels, Esquire

Gina M. Sera, Esquire Ian Liston, Esquire

Jeremy J. Riley, Esquire Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC Rigrodsky & Long, PA. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800

2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19801

Wilmington, DE 19803 William M. Lafferty, Esquire

Ryan D. Stottmann, Esquire Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP

1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: In re Riverbed Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Civil Action No. 10484-VCG

Dear Counsel: 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.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock 11]

Sam Glasscock III