of California has stated that to meet Silicon Graphics, “plaintiffs must couple each separate allegation in the [complaint] with details identifying the sources upon which such beliefs are based.” In re Vantive, 110 F.Supp.2d at 1216 (citing Silicon Graphics, 183 F.3d at 985.) Judge Orrick explained “[t]his requirement is the PSLRA’s single most important weapon against pleading fraud by hindsight because it forces plaintiffs to reveal whether they base their allegations on an inference of earlier knowledge drawn from later disclosures or from contemporaneous documents or other facts.” Id. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are not required to always name their sources, but rather may, if they provide adequate corroborating details, rely on unnamed sources. In re McKesson, 126 F.Supp.2d at 1271 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, regardless of whether it would
holding that a lumpsum restitution order is valid where it does not specify the source of the restitution or direct liquidation of specific assets and the defendant may have other sources of payment holding that where accessible literature sources clearly provided a description of the teachings at issue the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference holding that although in some cases it may be proper to require a plaintiff to identify a source by name silicon graphics does not require naming as opposed to identification of sources it is possible to identify sources and provide other corroborating details without disclosing the names of the sources holding that it may not holding that the due process clause does not require courts to abandon their ageold practice of seeking information from outofcourt sources to guide their judgment toward a more enlightened and just sentence