Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 255

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS TO SEAL AND REDACT DAUBERT RECORD re #247 Letter filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 1, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 No. C 10-03561 WHA Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS TO SEAL AND REDACT DAUBERT RECORD GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / On August 28, 2011, Google Inc. filed a précis requesting permission to file “two short 16 motions.” Google seeks to seal and redact portions of the public record containing references to a 17 Google document cited by Oracle America, Inc. at the July 21 hearing on Google’s Daubert 18 motion. Google asserts that the document is subject to the attorney-client privilege but was 19 inadvertently produced to Oracle. Google identifies approximately five pages of the hearing 20 transcript and four lines of the July 22 order as supposedly requiring protection (Dkt. No. 247). 21 Oracle opposes Google’s request (Dkt. No. 248). Good cause not having been shown, the request 22 is DENIED. Google may not file its proposed motions. 23 The attorney-client privilege protects communications made between an attorney and his 24 or her client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The document in question here is, 25 according to Google, an incomplete draft of an e-mail message. Google states that the addressee 26 field of the draft message is blank, indicating that the draft never was sent to anyone 27 (Dkt. No. 247 at 2). Thus, the document is not a communication of any type, much less a 28 communication protected by the attorney-client privilege. 1 Google argues that the document “is indisputably privileged, because the final version of 2 the document, which appears on Google’s privilege log, was sent to, among others, Google’s 3 in-house attorneys, and was also prominently marked ‘Attorney Work Product’” (ibid.). This 4 argument is unavailing. First, the supposedly privileged status of a different document has no 5 bearing on whether this document is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Second, simply 6 labeling a document as attorney work product or sending it to a lawyer (measures which, in any 7 event, were not taken with respect to the document in question) does not automatically trigger 8 privilege. Google has provided no indication that the disputed document is in fact subject to the 9 claimed attorney-client privilege. Allowing Google to file its proposed motions would be futile. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: August 1, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?