CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. v. MAYER LABORATORIES, INC.

Filing 196

ORDER RE PARTIES JANUARY 6, 2012 DISCOVERY LETTERS (DKT. NOS. 194, 195). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/10/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

No. C10-4429 EMC (JSC)

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC,

ORDER RE PARTIES’ JANUARY 6,
2012 DISCOVERY LETTERS (DKT.
NOS. 194, 195)

Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER LABORATORIES, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16

/

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court has reviewed the parties’ letters of January 6, 2012 (Dkt. Nos. 194, 195)
and rules as follows:
1.

Mayer shall verify that all PERS reports have been produced, or shall produce

all additional PERS reports, on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 13, 2012.
2.

Mayer shall provide verifications for all of its interrogatory responses by 5:00

p.m. on January 13, 2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b).
3.

Church & Dwight shall provide verifications for all of its interrogatory

responses on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 13, 2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b).
4.

The Court is unable to address the dispute with respect to Interrogatory No. 9

because Church & Dwight’s response at issue does not appear to be an exhibit to Docket No.
195. Exhibit C is a cover letter referencing the response, but does not include the response

1

itself. The Court notes, however, that Interrogatory No. 9 does not request identification of

2

documents; it requests facts that should be in Church & Dwight’s possession. The Court

3

therefore does not understand Church & Dwight’s reliance on Mayer’s belated production of

4

documents to justify its response. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer by

5

telephone with respect to Interrogatory No. 9. If no agreement can be reached, on or before

6

January 13, 2012 Mayer shall file with the Court a copy of Church & Dwight’s response to

7

Interrogatory No. 9.

8

5.

Church & Dwight has met its burden of demonstrating that its counsel’s

communications with ASM are covered by the attorney-client privilege. See United States v.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156-59 (9th Cir. 2010); United States ex rel. Strom v. Scios, Inc., 2011

11

WL 4831193 *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011). The Court is unpersuaded that ASM cannot be

12

Church & Dwight’s agent for purposes of the attorney-client privilege merely because in

13

another context it referred to ASM as a “third party broker.”

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: January 10, 2012
17

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2