Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al

Filing 155

DISCOVERY ORDER re 154 Document E-Filed Under Seal filed by Juniper Networks, Inc., 148 Letter filed by Juniper Networks, Inc.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/17/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2010)

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al

Doc. 155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., v. Plaintiffs, No. C 09-03449 JSW (MEJ) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE (DKT. ##148, 154)

ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. and SECURITY RESEARCH HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants. _____________________________________/

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter filed on November 11, 2010. (Dkt. ##148, 154.) The dispute concerns Plaintiff Juniper Network, Inc.'s contention that Defendants Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. and Security Research Holdings, LLC ("Defendants") have withheld or redacted certain documents based on improper claims of privilege. Having reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court notes that Juniper has objected to 2,550 of Defendants' 2,600 privilege log entries. For several of these entries, Defendants invoke privileges on behalf of third parties, which, upon preliminary review, appear improper.1 However, given that Defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard before Judge White on December 10, 2010, and any in camera review of the nearly 2,600 documents would take a considerable amount of the Court's time, the undersigned finds that it is impracticable to resolve this dispute within the available time, let alone the time required for production, if necessary, and review of any withheld documents prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Juniper's request WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Juniper is compelled to resolve this dispute prior to the motion to dismiss hearing, it shall file a continuance

Defendants argue that they have a common legal interest with the third party, but the caselaw they cite does not appear to support their argument, and Juniper states that the third party does not intend to seek a protective order and has not otherwise intervened to invoke a privilege.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

request before Judge White. If Judge White grants Juniper's request, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer pursuant to the undersigned's for the purpose of narrowing their dispute. If Defendants contend that third party communications are privileged, they must make a stronger showing than the present letter, including whether the third party seeks to invoke the privilege. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2010 MARIA-ELENA JAMES Chief United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2