WPC& XUf,!9jEg;Zy_y1/,teд U@1oH TVC+3濿J,jWJ s5,يw[Zل @Qa^i4|AF .~qЏRnE|t҄{ _ZO[Vf^~٤‘KKgw2b~kgB@ Vy[Jem J@an φ{@| u J ͸@+%$h}I˗(b&N"&*݄9 ɖ5F8lGbFj+*6j3c 4X` hp x (#>  V! :footnote texfootnote text            `~:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        O<6X9`("Courier NewTTOh~:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        O<6X9`("Courier NewTTO   j3)VtVt   _QA=x h x p @XEddd (#(#  $ (#X$ (#(#H.` hp x (# (#H(e2j3$ @!VtVt   ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2j3$ @!VtVt   (e2j3$ @!VtVt   ($    'dxd C<< c , j3"VtVt   _  $ (#X$      X XXXXX       VtXXVt@    1  A        ;6X9`("Courier NewTT($      @!VtVt   _X XXXXX          XXXXXXXX          1       XXXXXXXX  VtXXVtԀPlaintiffsoriginalcomplaintwasfiledonAugust25,2004._GGP_Ԁhasnotbeen  served.TheotherDefendantsareserved,andcounselhaveenteredappearances V ontheirbehalf.WhilePlaintiffdenominatedtheComplaintasaclassaction, L hehasnotmovedforclasscertificationunderRule2231(c).  @!VtVt   X XXXXX          XXXXXXXX      X XXX  2       X XXX XXXX   VtXXVtԀInfact,oneofthecasescitedbyPlaintiffillustratestheneedfor  carefuljudicialscrutiny.Whilenotingthatexpediteddiscoveryis normally V routinelygrantedintheCourtofChancerywhenpreliminaryinjunctiverelief L issought,ChancellorJacobsinInReInternationalJensenInc.Shareholders  Litigation,supra,foundthatexpediteddiscoveryshouldnotbegrantedsince J themovingpapersfailedtoarticulateacolorableclaimofirreparableharm.(29;$ @!VtVt    X  0  3|x (J@$VtVt  HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0!u1 aa0yweb0U d @!VtVt   _   X X  DAVID_JASINOVER_Ԁ*   p INTHE  Ѐ x 0   ` Plaintiff   h   *   p CIRCUITCOURT@(#(# vs.    h   *   p FOR   Ѐ  THEROUSECOMPANY,ETAL.  *   p HOWARDCOUNTY `  0  0` (#(#Defendants h   *   p CaseNo.13C0459594 @` (#` (# *********    @<< MEMORANDUMANDORDER `    X XXX BeforetheCourtistheMotionforExpeditedDiscoveryfiled   byPlaintiffDavid_Jasinover_,seekinganorderpermittinghimto 0  conductexpeditedlimiteddiscoveryinconnectionwithhisMotion  forPreliminaryInjunction.BothmotionswerefiledonOctober18, P 2004.Plaintiff,astockholderofTheRouseCompany( Rouse), 0 seekstoenjointheproposedacquisitionofRousebyGeneralGrowth p Properties,Inc.( _GGP_).TheDefendantsinthecaseareRouse, P _GGP_,andtenmembersofRousesBoardofDirectors. X XXX XXXX       _   1      _    OnAugust20,2004,Rouse,apubliclytradedcompany,announcedthat_GGP_Ԁwouldacquire  p itfor$67.50persharethroughamerger.Rouseassertsthatthetransactionprovidesitsstockholders   a32percentpremiumoverthemarketvalueofthestockjustpriortotheannouncement.OnOctober @" 12,2004,RousefiledwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionanddisseminatedtoRouse  $ stockholdersaDefinitiveProxyStatementonSchedule14D9( theProxy),urgingRousespublic `"& stockholderstovotetheirsharesinfavoroftheproposedacquisition. #@(   PlaintifffindstheProxytobeinadequateandcomplainsthatit: % * 8  0`   suffersfromnumerousmaterialdeficienciesincluding,mostimportantly,the '`", omissionofanymeaningfulexplanationofwhydefendantsfailedtopermit '(#- otherinterestedpartiesfrommakinganofferfortheCompany.TheProxy (#. alsofailstodisclosematerialinformationconcerningthefairnessopinions h)$/a _defendantsreceivedfromtwofinancialadvisorsuponwhichdefendants  purportedlyreliedinapprovingtheProposedAcquisition.x` `  8  0`    ` `  DefendantsMotionForExpeditedDiscovery,p.3. X   ItisPlaintiffscontentionthatwithoutthesedisclosuresandthecorrectionof other  materiallymisrepresentedand/oromittedinformation,Rousestockholderscannotmakeafully ( x informeddecisionwhetherthepricebeingofferedbyGGPisfair,andthuswhethertheyshouldvote    infavoroftheacquisition. H     AspecialstockholdermeetingandvoteissetforNovember9,2004,anditisrepresentedby (  Defendantscounselthatclosingwilltakeplacethenextdayifthemergerisapproved. h    Defendantsarguethatexpediteddiscoveryshouldnotbeallowedinadvanceofthemeeting H  sincetheProxystatementisunusuallydetailedandcomprehensive,fulfillingonitsfaceallSECand  Marylandlawrequirements,andthatPlaintiffhasfailedtogenerateanyviableissueofnon h disclosurethatwouldjustifythedemandeddiscoverywhichincludesdepositionsoftheprincipals.     TheCourtagreeswithPlaintiffthatithastheauthorityintheappropriatecasetoexpedite  discovery.MarylandRule2401(b)specificallypermitstheCourttoorderthatdiscoverybe @ completedbyaspecifieddateortime,andalthoughMarylandRule2411generallyrequiresan   answertobefiledbyadefendantpriortothetakingofdepositions,theRulefurtherpermitsthe `  Courttograntapartyleavetotakedepositionsatanearliertimebutonlyupon termsasthecourt  @ prescribes.      PlaintiffdirectstheCourttotheexamplesetbythehighlyrespectedDelawareCourtof `  Chancery,whichdealsregularlywithissuesofacquisitionsandmergers,andcitesseveralcases   wheretheDelawarecourtshaveconsideredexpeditingdiscoveryinadvanceofconsiderationof 0  preliminaryinjunctionproceedingsdirectedatblockingmergersandacquisitions.See,e.g.,  AmericanStoresCo.v.LuckyStores,Inc.,No.9766,1998WL909330(Del.Ch.Apr.13,1988);In P ReIntlJensenInc.ShareholdersLitig.,No.14992,1996Del.Ch.Lexis77(Del.Ch.July16,1996); 0 HarmonyMillLtd.Pshipv.Magness,No.7463,1984Del.Ch.Lexis419(Del.Ch.Feb.14,1984). p   Whiletheseexamplesareinstructiveandworthyofemulationinanappropriatecase,they  alsoreinforcetheneedforcarefuljudicialscrutinyandoversighttoensurethatstepsofsupposed  p expeditionarelegitimateandnecessarypriortoacourtorderingaregimenonlitigantsthatdeparts   fromnormalprocedure. XXXXXXXX         2      ׀Thisisparticularlythecasewhere,ashere,theregimenisbeingconsidered @" beforethedefendingpartieshavehadanopportunitywithinthetimeallowedbytheRulestoanswer  $ orfileanappropriatemotion,andwhereonemajordefendant,GGP,hasnotbeenserved. `"&   ItisagainstthesestandardsthattheCourtwillweighthePlaintiffsrequestforlimited #@( expediteddiscoveryandDefendantsoppositiontoit. % *   Rouses135pageproxystatementisindeeddetailed.Itcontainssectionsdescribingthe  backgroundofthemerger,theBoardsreasonsforthemerger,therecommendationoftheBoard, @ opinionsoftwofinancialadvisors,andstatementsastointerestsofcertainpersonsinthemerger.   Theproxystatementalsoreportsindetailonthedaytodaychronologyofeventsleadingtothe `  decisiontoacceptGGPsbidandRousesdealingswithotherpotentialbidders.Italsodisclosesthe  @ litigationrelatingtothemerger,includinganextensivesummaryoftheclaimsandallegationsraised    byPlaintiffinthislitigationandrelatedstockholderlitigationinIllinois.  `    DespitethelengthanddetailoftheProxy,PlaintiffassertsthattheBoardhas misrepresented  and/oromittedmaterialinformationwhichwillpreventRousestockholdersfrom makingafully @ informeddecisionastowhethertovotetheirsharesinfavoroftheProposedAcquisition.Motion   ForExpeditedDiscovery,p.11.PlaintiffhasfocusedonhissuspicionsabouttheroleofRouses `  chairman,CEOandPresidentinfavoringGGPoverotherpotentialbidders,describedintheProxy  @ asCompaniesAandB,andanassertedfailurebyRousetoincludeintheProxystatementsufficient     criticalfinancialinformationthatwasutilizedbyRousestwofinancialadvisorsintheirvaluation `  analyses.     PlaintiffsconcernswouldpotentiallyhavemoreforceifPlaintiffcouldestablishsome 0  crediblefactualpredicatetosupporthissuspicionsthattheinformationprovidedintheProxyisnot  accurateorsufficient.InfilinghisoriginalMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderorPreliminary P Injunction,Plaintiffdidnotincludeanyaffidavits,althoughtheRulerequiresthem.Rule15504(a). 0 Plaintiffthroughcounselcandidlyadmitsinoralargumentthathehasnopresentfactualbasisto p contestanyofthestatementsoffactintheProxy,butbelievesthatthestatementsmadeareeither P notextensiveenoughordonotpresentadequatejustificationsforwhycertainactionsweretakenor  nottaken.Forexample,Plaintiffwantstoknow whytheBoarddidnotpermitthesocalled  p  CompanyBtohaveadditionaltimetomakeafirmofferpriortoRouseacceptingGGPsbid.     Plaintiffnotesinfootnote3ofhisMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderorPreliminary @" InjunctionthathisownstatementoffactscomessolelyfromtheProxyfiledbyRouse.Heoffersa  $ detaileddeconstructionandexegesisofthedocumentandlistsmanyquestionshewantstohave `"& answered.Healsolistsotherfinancialdetailthathebelievesheneedsinordertoevaluatethe #@( transaction. % *   PlaintiffiscertainlyfreetoarguethattheProxystatementonitsfacecontainssuch '`", inadequaciesthatitdoesnotfairlyinformstockholdersoftheinformationneededtomakeavote. (#. However,beforesettingthisCourtandtheotherpartiesonanextraordinarycourseofrigorousand 0*%0 rusheddiscovery,itisincumbentonthePlaintifftomakesomedemonstrationthatthevoyagewould +'2 likelyleadtoaworthwhiledestination.Plaintiffhasnotdoneso.    Itistherefore,this__25th___dayofOctober,2004, @   ORDERED,thatthePlaintiffsMotionforExpeditedDiscoveryisdenied.   X XXX     `     h     ________________________________  @    `     h     DennisM.Sweeney       `     h     JUDGE    CopiesFaxedandMailed򀀀 p  `  (ServiceListOnFollowingPage)    Copiesto: x PatrickC.Smith,Esq. X SiobhanR.Keenan,Esq.   Rubin&Rubin,Chtd.  502WashingtonAvenue `  Suite200 ( x Towson,MD21204  @ MatthewM.Houston,Esq.    WechslerHarwoodLLP H   488MadisonAvenue `  NewYork,NewYork10022 (  DavidClarke,Esq. h  EdwardS.Scheideman,Esq. 0  PiperRudnick H  1200NineteenthStreet,N.W.  Washington,DC200362412