You're viewing Docket Item 94 from the case Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jenkins. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 15



DONALD W. SEARLES, CALIFORNIA Bar No. 135705
E-mail: [email protected]
C. DABNEY O’RIORDAN, CALIFORNIA Bar No. 205158
E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission
Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director
Michelle Wein Layne, Associate Regional Director
5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone: (323) 965-3998
Facsimile: (323) 965-3908


JOHN W. SPIEGEL (Pro Hac Vice)
[email protected]
GREGORY J. WEINGART (Pro Hac Vice)
[email protected]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
(213) 683-9100
Telephone:
Facsimile:
(213) 687-3702
Attorneys for Defendant
Maynard L. Jenkins



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAYNARD L. JENKINS,
Defendant.

CASE NO. CV-09-01510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Date: January 14, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.____
Courtroom: 602
(Hon. G. Murray Snow)





12667783.2







SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 2 of 15



Counsel for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the

“Commission”) and for Defendant Maynard L. Jenkins (“Jenkins” or “Mr. Jenkins”)
submit this Joint Statement setting forth each party’s position for the January 14, 2011
Scheduling Conference.
I.

PROCEDURAL STATUS.
1. SEC Statement.
On November 24, 2010, this Court granted Jenkins’ motion for a continuance

pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and continued the
scheduling conference from December 10, 2010 to January 14, 2011. On December 17 &
17, 2010 the Commission took the deposition of Don Watson, in SEC v. Fraser, et al.
CV-09-433 PHX-GMS. Counsel for Jenkins did not participate in that deposition. In
addition, Jenkins has recently noticed, or cross-noticed in conjunction with Watson, the
depositions of eight former CSK employees to occur in January and early February, 2011.

Prior to the filing of the Commission’s motion for partial summary judgment, the
Commission requested that Jenkins sit for a deposition, to question him on the results of
CSK’s internal accounting investigation and his understanding of why CSK was required
to file its second restatement. Through his counsel, Jenkins refused to do so, claiming that
he had yet to review the voluminous documentary discovery then recently produced by
the Commission. As a result of the Court’s November 24, 2010 Order, the Commission
has renewed its request to depose Jenkins on all issues, i.e., both misconduct and
compensation related issues, and noticed him for deposition on January 7, 2011. Counsel
for Jenkins refused to produce him on that date, citing Jenkins’ vacation schedule and the
fact that Jenkins had recently propounded documentary discovery requests on both
CSK/O’Reilly, and CSK’s outside auditors, PwC, that relate to executive compensation
issues (as opposed to the underlying accounting misconduct that resulted in CSK’s second
restatement). Both CSK/O’Reilly and PwC have filed objections and responses to those
discovery requests and the Commission anticipates a protracted period of negotiations and
potential motion work regarding Jenkins’ discovery requests to CSK/O’Reilly and PwC.
12667783.2



- 2 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 3 of 15



Jenkins’ counsel refuses to produce Jenkins for deposition until CSK/O’Reilly and

PwC have fully complied with Jenkins’ discovery requests. The Commission believes
that Jenkins’ position is not well founded, as he was not a member of CSK’s
Compensation Committee and was not involved in establishing his own compensation.
Undoubtedly, Jenkins is aware of the general financial performance metrics and personal
goals that affected his bonuses, and there is no reason his deposition should be delayed,
particularly where there is no reason to believe that Jenkins has ever seen the documents
he currently seeks from CSK/O’Reilly. In addition, those documents are entirely
irrelevant to the underlying issue of “misconduct.” Similarly, there is no reason to believe
Jenkins has ever seen the documents he currently seeks from PwC, nor do those
documents relate to the underlying issue of “misconduct.” As such, there is no reason for
Jenkins to refuse to make himself immediately available for a deposition, particularly
where his anticipated admissions regarding the results of CSK’s internal accounting
investigation and his understanding of why CSK was required to file a second restatement
will likely moot the need for any additional discovery on the issue of “misconduct.”
Accordingly, at the Scheduling Conference, the Commission will request the Court’s
assistance in resolving the dispute between the parties concerning the timing of Jenkins’
deposition. The Commission would also welcome comments from the Court as to what
discovery it believes should be conducted prior to ruling on the Commission’s partial
motion for summary judgment.

2. Mr. Jenkins Statement.
Mr. Jenkins’ Deposition
The SEC states that it seeks to take Mr. Jenkins’ deposition both on the issue of

“misconduct” and on issues relating to the amount of compensation that Mr. Jenkins
should be required to repay if liability were found under Section 304.1 Mr. Jenkins is

1 The SEC previously indicated in September 2010 that it would like to depose Mr.
Jenkins but then did not press that request, apparently because it was inconsistent with the
SEC’s assertion that this Court could decide the SEC’s motion for partial summary
judgment based solely on the Second Restatement, the Opper and O’Brien pleas and other
documents already in existence.
12667783.2



- 3 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 4 of 15



prepared to proceed with his deposition promptly, as soon as the important documents
described below relating to the compensation issues in the case have been obtained.

As counsel for Mr. Jenkins has explained to the SEC, before Mr. Jenkins should be

deposed on issues relating to compensation, he needs first to obtain and have an
opportunity to review the compensation-related documents described below that he has
subpoenaed from CSK and PwC. These documents relate to the individual performance
goals and other criteria established by CSK for payment of Mr. Jenkins’ bonuses and
other incentive-based compensation, the factors taken into account by CSK’s
Compensation Committee in setting the amount of these payments, any effect on Mr.
Jenkins’ compensation from the restated financials set forth in the First Restatement and
the Second Restatement, and communications with Mr. Jenkins on these issues. They are
therefore directly relevant to the issue of the amount of compensation that Mr. Jenkins
should be required to repay if liability under Section 304 were found.

As this Court stated in its June 9, 2010 Order denying Mr. Jenkins’ motion to

dismiss, “to the extent that the statute or the remedy sought under it result in a severe and
unjustified deprivation to the Defendant, constitutional issues may arise in particular
cases.” June 9, 2010 Order at 7:18-20.2 This Court noted that determination of the
amount of reimbursement to which the SEC could be entitled “can only be ascertained
through development of the nature of the recovery sought by the SEC against Jenkins in
light of the facts of this case.” Id. at 7:15-18. These compensation issues therefore are a
critical element of the SEC’s case on which Mr. Jenkins should be afforded a fair
opportunity to prepare before he is deposed.


2 In support of this statement, the Court cited the following cases: BMW of N. Am., Inc. v.
Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 (1996) (holding that grossly excessive punitive damage awards
violate the Due Process Clause); United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998)
(holding that a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly
disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense); S.W. Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Danaher, 238 U.S. 490–91 (1915) (striking down a penalty imposed on a telephone
company for refusing to refusing to provide service where such refusal had never been
declared unlawful and was applied impartially). Id. at 7:20-26.
12667783.2



- 4 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 5 of 15



The SEC’s assertion above that Mr. Jenkins has “never seen” these compensation-
related documents described below that he has subpoenaed from CSK and PwC is without
basis, and the SEC does not identify on what ground it makes this assertion. The
documents to be produced should include, for example, evidence of the individual
“performance goals” for Mr. Jenkins that were established with Mr. Jenkins by CSK’s
Compensation Committee as one component of his bonus as well as documents
evidencing communications between Mr. Jenkins and members of the Compensation
Committee on the payment of bonuses to Mr. Jenkins and their amount.

Mr. Jenkins should have the opportunity to review these documents before he is

deposed by the SEC, both to the extent that the documents were seen by Mr. Jenkins at the
time of the events in question and because Mr. Jenkins’ review of these documents is
necessary to enable him to refresh his recollection regarding these compensation-related
issues from as long as 10 years ago. These documents should also be obtained and
reviewed by Mr. Jenkins before he is deposed by the SEC so that the SEC cannot claim
that it is entitled to a second deposition of Mr. Jenkins (who is 68 years old and in poor
health) in order to examine Mr. Jenkins on these compensation-related documents.
Notably, notwithstanding that counsel for Mr. Jenkins previously raised this concern with
counsel for the SEC, and that before drafting its portion of this Joint Statement counsel for
the SEC saw this concern identified in Mr. Jenkins’ portion, the SEC does not state that it
will not seek a second deposition of Mr. Jenkins on compensation-related issues.

The SEC cannot claim any prejudice from having to wait to depose Mr. Jenkins on

issues relating to alleged “misconduct” (or compensation) until after Mr. Jenkins has
obtained these compensation-related documents. During its multi-year investigation the
SEC examined Mr. Jenkins under oath for three days and, accordingly, already knows
Mr. Jenkins’ testimony on the subjects that the SEC identifies above for his deposition
“regarding the results of CSK’s internal accounting investigation and his understanding
why CSK was required to file a second restatement.” The SEC therefore has no pressing
need to depose Mr. Jenkins again to know his testimony on the issue of whether there was
12667783.2



- 5 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 6 of 15



“misconduct” at CSK. The SEC also already has submitted Mr. Jenkins’ testimony in
support of its motion for partial summary judgment and does not need to depose him
again for its motion. Moreover, contrary to the SEC’s asserted “anticipat[ion]” stated
above, as set forth in Mr. Jenkins’ opposition to the SEC’s motion, Mr. Jenkins’ testimony
shows that he is without personal knowledge of the alleged accounting improprieties at
CSK and it therefore does not support that there are no triable questions of fact on whether
there was “misconduct” at CSK.

In sum, given that (i) as set forth below Mr. Jenkins anticipates timely cooperation

from CSK in obtaining production of the compensation-related documents and (ii) the
SEC still has months before there is any fact discovery cut-off or deadline for the filing of
dispositive motions, Mr. Jenkins’ deposition should be deferred until after he has had an
opportunity to obtain and review the compensation-related documents he has subpoenaed
from CSK and PwC.

SEC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On September 17, 2010, the SEC

filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether there was
“misconduct” at CSK within the meaning of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 17
U.S.C. §7234 (“Section 304”).

On October 29, 2010, Mr. Jenkins filed his opposition to the SEC’s motion and

also filed a motion under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
continuance of the SEC’s motion on the ground that Mr. Jenkins needs additional
discovery on the issue of “misconduct” before the SEC’s motion should be heard.
Specifically, Mr. Jenkins explained in the Weingart Declaration filed in support of his
Rule 56(f) motion that the identical considerations that caused the SEC to request a trial
date in this action after Messrs. Watson, Opper and O'Brien are available to testify
establish that the SEC's motion should denied, or at least continued, until the testimony of
these three individuals can be obtained. As shown by its summary judgment motion, the
SEC's principal arguments of “misconduct” at CSK are based on alleged acts by these
individuals, who the SEC describes as “the individuals most involved.” See also SEC’s
12667783.2



- 6 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 7 of 15



statement at 6:2-4 and 13:4-7 of Joint Case Management Report filed July 23, 2010 in this
action (Messrs. Watson, Opper and O’Brien are “the individuals most involved” in the
alleged misconduct). Mr. Jenkins understands based on the SEC’s statements that Messrs.
O’Brien and Opper will not be available to testify until after conclusion of Mr. Watson’s
criminal trial, currently scheduled for June 7, 2011. Mr. Jenkins further explained in the
Weingart Declaration that the SEC's motion should also be denied, or at least continued,
because he has not yet had the opportunity to depose the additional individuals employed
by CSK who were involved in its vendor allowance program and its accounting for vendor
allowances or to depose the PwC auditors who audited CSK’s financial statements on the
issue of vendor allowances and other issues.

On November 12, 2010, the SEC filed its reply in support of its motion for partial

summary judgment, without responding to Mr. Jenkins’ Rule 56(f) motion.

On November 24, 2010, this Court filed its Order granting Mr. Jenkins’ Rule 56(f)

motion and continuing this Scheduling Conference from December 12, 2010 to January
14, 2011.

SEC Motion for Protective Order/DOJ Motion for Stay. During a telephonic

conference on January 7, 2011, this Court denied the SEC’s motion for a protective order
to stay the deposition of Aimee Hudson scheduled for January 11, 2011. The Court also
directed Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Watson to file not later than January 11, 2011, any
opposition to the DOJ’s motion to intervene in this action and to stay the depositions of J.
Scott Neff, Paul Sundin, Andrew Stevens, Dale Ward and Michael Thompson until
resolution Mr. Watson’s criminal proceeding. Further, the Court stayed Mr. Ward’s
deposition that was scheduled for January 13, 2011. These depositions are discussed
further below.
II.

STATUS OF DISCOVERY.
1. SEC Statement.
To date, the Commission has responded to Jenkins’ requests for production of
documents; two sets of interrogatories; and requests for admission. Other than for the
12667783.2

- 7 -





SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 8 of 15



Commission’s recent production of a small set of documents from PwC, which had been
inadvertently omitted from the Commission’s prior production of electronic documents,
there are no current discovery disputes between the parties, other than the timing of
Jenkins’ deposition.

As reflected below, Jenkins contends that Watson, during his deposition, denied

any wrongdoing on his part and denied knowledge of any wrongdoing by others. That is a
gross mischaracterization of Watson’s testimony. Rather, when confronted with dozens
of incriminating documents establishing his knowledge of the movement of vendor
allowance funds across years to cover up uncollectible account receivables, all Watson
could state was that he had no recollection of the documents. In addition, he did not deny
wrongdoing by others, he simply claimed he was not aware of it. Watson further testified
that accounting “secrets” (i.e., the movement of LWT funds across years to avoid write
offs) had been kept from him and had he known of them at the time, “he would have dealt
with those people very harshly.” The following excerpt from the second day of his
testimony best describes Watson’s position:

Q. BY MR. SEARLES: If amounts were moved as
18 reflected in this -- do you see on the first
19 page of this exhibit, again, a column over to
20 the right portion of the page off invoice moved
21 to '03. Another column Q2 billbacks moved to
22 '03. Do you see those columns?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would Mr. -- assuming that that conduct
25 took place, do you think Mr. O'Brien or
561
1 Mr. Opper would try to keep that conduct a
2 secret from you?
3 MR. ROSHKA: Objection; form, foundation.
4 Speculation. Vague and ambiguous.
5 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if they would
6 have or not.
7 Q. BY MR. SEARLES: Do you think there were
8 secrets in the finance department that you were
9 not advised of regarding the accounting of
10 LWT?
11 MR. ROSHKA: Object to the form,
12 foundation. Vague and ambiguous.
13 THE WITNESS: As I sit here today, I
14 believe that happened.
15 Q. BY MR. SEARLES: And what do you believe
12667783.2



- 8 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 9 of 15



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

16 was the secret as you sit here today?
17 A. As I sit here today, in reading some of
18 the documents you did earlier, I don't believe I
19 was told everything that was happening within
20 the department.
21 Q. Why do you think you were not told?
22 A. I don't believe I was told specifically
23 everything that was happening.
24 Q. Do you believe you were told about the
25 movement of funds across years to make up for
562
1 collection shortfalls in prior years?
2 MR. ROSHKA: Object to the form,
3 foundation.
4 THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe I
5 was.
6 Q. BY MR. SEARLES: Seeing the documents you
7 see here today and yesterday, do you believe
8 that practice in fact occurred?
9 MR. ROSHKA: Object to the form,
10 foundation. Calls for speculation.
11 THE WITNESS: As I sit here today, I
12 don't know if that happened.
13 Q. BY MR. SEARLES: This document certainly
14 reflects that it did, didn't it?
15 MR. ROSHKA: Object to the form,
16 foundation. Vague and ambiguous.
17 THE WITNESS: This document has columns
18 on here that indicate stuff was moved. I don't
19 have knowledge of how they moved it and what
20 they moved.
21 Q. BY MR. SEARLES: All right. Well, when
22 you say that you believe that certain things
23 were concealed from you, what are the things
24 that you believe were concealed from you?
25 A. As I sit here today reading the 10-K I
563
1 believe there were monies that were
2 appropriately -- were not appropriately handled
3 in the 2004 fiscal year.
4 Q. And how were they inappropriately handled
5 that was a secret to you?
6 A. We did a restatement as a company in
7 2004. I was not aware of any monies that were
8 moved from '04 to '03 at the time, and so I
9 believe that that was withheld from me.
10 Q. And who do you believe was responsible
11 for withholding that information from you?
12 MR. ROSHKA: Object to the form,
13 foundation.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know who
15 specifically was instructed not to tell me, but
16 I don't believe I was told.
17 Q. BY MR. SEARLES: And had you known of
18 that conduct at the time it was occurring as the
12667783.2



- 9 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 10 of 15



19 chief financial officer of CSK would you have
20 put a stop to it?
21 A. I can tell you if I would have known that
22 at the time of a restatement we would have dealt
23 with it at the time of the restatement and we
24 would have dealt with those people very
25 harshly.

R.T. Watson pp. 560 – 563.

Accordingly, Jenkins’ position that Watson’s testimony, standing alone, creates an
insurmountable factual barrier to the Commission’s motion for partial summary judgment
on the issue of misconduct is simply wrong. If anything, Watson’s deposition testimony
amounts to an admission on his part that the movement of vendor allowance funds across
years was fraudulent, but that he simply didn’t know about. As such, Watson’s testimony
supports the Commission’s motion for summary judgment against Jenkins. In any event,
the Commission continues to believe that Jenkins’ admission of company misconduct, by
Watson, O’Brien, Opper or others, is sufficient to establish the element of misconduct
and, for that reason, requests that Jenkins be deposed at the earliest opportunity.

In addition to Jenkins, the Commission anticipates deposing members of CSK’s

Compensation Committee and employees of PwC on compensation related issues.
Finally, in the event the Commission is required to prove the element of “misconduct”
based on the testimony of the individuals personally involved in that conduct, the
Commission anticipates taking the testimony of Opper, O’Brien, and any other witnesses
who intend to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege prior to the conclusion of Watson’s
criminal case, after the conclusion of Watson’s criminal trial, which is currently set to
commence on June 7, 2011.

2. Mr. Jenkins Statement.
Document Discovery
Mr. Jenkins has received and is reviewing the documents produced by the SEC in
response to his document requests, which Mr. Jenkins understands consist of documents
that the Department of Justice/SEC obtained from CSK and from CSK’s outside auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”). In connection with a document subpoena served on
12667783.2



- 10 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 11 of 15



PwC in December 2010, counsel for Mr. Jenkins learned for the first time that, contrary to
the SEC’s specific representations to Mr. Jenkins and to this Court, more than 55,000
pages of documents obtained by the SEC from PwC had not been produced by the SEC to
Mr. Jenkins. After inquiry by Mr. Jenkins, the SEC produced these documents on
December 26, 2010, and Mr. Jenkins is in the process of reviewing this additional
production.

On December 1 and November 30, 2010, respectively, Mr. Jenkins served

subpoenas for documents on CSK (and its related entities, collectively “CSK”) and PwC.
The documents requested by these subpoenas relate to CSK’s bonus and incentive plans
and the information considered by CSK’s Compensation Committee in establishing the
benchmarks for, and determining the amount of, bonuses to be paid to Mr. Jenkins and
other senior officers of CSK under these plans. CSK served written responses and
objections to the subpoenas. Counsel for Mr. Jenkins is in the process of “meeting and
conferring” with CSK’s counsel to obtain production of the requested documents.
Counsel for CSK has advised that CSK intends to cooperate in producing responsive
documents, will begin producing responsive documents this week and will advise counsel
for Mr. Jenkins when the remainder of the responsive documents will be produced.
Counsel for Mr. Jenkins therefore believes that the documents responsive to the subpoena
to CSK will be produced expeditiously and is hopeful that the documents can be obtained
from CSK without the need to involve this Court.3

Other Depositions
On December 16 and 17, 2010, the SEC deposed Mr. Watson in SEC v. Fraser, et
al., U.S.D.C., D. Ariz., Case No. 2:09-CV-443-PHX-GMS (“Fraser action”). Counsel for
Mr. Jenkins did not attend the deposition in that action, but has reviewed its transcript.
While in its statement above the SEC improperly seeks to argue the merit of its assertions,


3 Because it appears that all of PwC’s documents were produced to the SEC, and as set
forth above the SEC has now apparently produced all of these documents to Mr. Jenkins,
it appears that Mr. Jenkins’ document subpoena to PwC may be moot.
12667783.2



- 11 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 12 of 15



Mr. Watson’s deposition transcript quoted by the SEC above shows that in his testimony
Mr. Watson disclaimed any knowledge of accounting improprieties at CSK and in
principal part responded without foundation to the SEC’s counsel’s improper
hypothetical, “what if” questions. At his deposition Mr. Watson denied any wrongdoing
on his part and denied knowledge of any wrongdoing by others. Counsel for Mr. Jenkins
understands that the SEC’s counsel questions Mr. Watson’s credibility. Because
credibility is not an issue to be decided on summary judgment, this deposition testimony
of Mr. Watson, who as set forth above the SEC describes as one of the three individuals
“most involved” in the alleged misconduct at CSK, together with the evidence that Mr.
Jenkins submitted in his opposition to the SEC’s motion for partial summary judgment,
establish at the least that there are triable issues of fact whether there was accounting
“misconduct” at CSK within the meaning of section 304 and that the SEC’s motion should
therefore be denied.

Mr. Jenkins has noticed the depositions of CSK employees Michael Thompson,

Roger Weiss, Dale Ward, Aimee Hudson, Jeffrey Scott Neff, Andrew Stevens, Paul
Sundin, and Stephen Lewis during the weeks of January 3, 10, and 24, the depositions to
be taken concurrently in this action and in the Fraser action.4 Mr. Jenkins also intends to
notice the depositions of additional CSK employees and PwC auditors on issues relating
to the alleged “misconduct” at CSK.

After he obtains production of the compensation-related documents subpoenaed

from CSK (described above), Mr. Jenkins intends to take depositions on issues relating to
Mr. Jenkins’ bonus and other incentive-based compensation. These depositions are
necessary so that Mr. Jenkins can address issues relating to the amount of compensation
for which the SEC seeks reimbursement in the event that “misconduct” is found under


4 The deposition of Ms. Hudson is scheduled to take place on January 11. Her counsel has
indicated that at the deposition Ms. Hudson intends to assert the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. The depositions of Messrs. Weiss, Ward, Stevens,
Sundin and Lewis are scheduled to take place on January 12, 13, 26, 27, and 28,
respectively. Counsel are currently negotiating dates for the remaining witnesses.
12667783.2



- 12 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 13 of 15



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

Section 304.
III. PROPOSED PRETRIAL AND TRIAL SCHEDULE

1. SEC Statement.
Watson’s criminal case is currently set to proceed to trial on June 7, 2011, and is
projected to last eight to twelve weeks. Assuming the criminal case takes as long as the
parties in that case anticipate, it will not likely not end until sometime in August or early
September. Accordingly, to allow for a period of fact discovery in the Jenkins case
following the conclusion of Watson’s criminal case, the Commission recommends the
following dates, which are the same dates currently set in SEC v. Fraser, et al., be
adopted:

Deadline for Completion of Fact Discovery. October 31, 2011.
Deadline for Disclosures of Experts and Completion of Expert Discovery. Plaintiff

and Defendant shall simultaneously provide full and complete expert disclosures as
required by F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(20(A)-(C) no later than November 30, 2011. Rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than January 10, 2012, and all expert
depositions shall be completed no later than February 10, 2012.

Dispositive Motions. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 12,

2012.

Deadline for Engaging in Good Faith Settlement Talks. August 31, 2011.
2. Mr. Jenkins Statement.
On the assumption that Mr. Watson’s criminal trial proceeds as scheduled on June
7, 2011, and is completed in the eight and twelve weeks that Mr. Jenkins understands is
the estimated length of that trial, and that Mr. Opper and Mr. O’Brien (and other witnesses
who assert the Fifth Amendment privilege pending completion of Mr. Watson’s criminal
trial (see, e.g., note 3)) are available to testify as soon as they have testified at Mr.
Watson’s criminal trial (and before conclusion of that trial), Mr. Jenkins proposes the
following schedule:

Deadline for completion of fact discovery
- 13 -

12667783.2



September 2,



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 14 of 15



Expert disclosures under FRCP 26

(simultaneous)

Rebuttal expert disclosures (simultaneous)

Deadline for completion of expert discovery

Deadline for filing all dispositive motions

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

September 16,

September 30,

October 28,

November 11,

Trial

Dated: January 7, 2011







Dated: January 7, 2011






January, 2012


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


/s/ Donald W. Searles
Donald W. Searles
C. Dabney O’Riordan
5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (323) 965-3998
Facsimile: (323) 965-3908

Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission


MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP


/s/ John W. Spiegel
John W. Spiegel
Gregory J. Weingart
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

Attorneys for Defendant Maynard L. Jenkins

12667783.2



- 14 -



SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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

Case 2:09-cv-01510-GMS Document 94 Filed 01/07/11 Page 15 of 15



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the

age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 355 S. Grand Ave.,
Los Angeles, California, 90071.

I hereby certify that on January 7, 2011, I used the CM/ECF system to transmit a

Notice of Electronic Filing to all attorneys of record registered for CM/ECF service in the
instant action, notifying them of the filing of the following document:

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that

this declaration was executed at Los Angeles, California on January 7, 2011.












/s/ Cynthia Silvas
Cynthia Silvas



12710484.1





SEC v. Jenkins, CV 09-1510-PHX-GMS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR JANUARY 14, 2011 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE