Flatworld Interactives LLC v. Apple Inc.

Filing 260

ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting in part and denying in part 227 Motion to Compel (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FLATWORLD INTERACTIVES,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT’S SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

10
11

No. C -12-01956 WHO (EDL)

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

12

/

13
On November 26, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s First and Second Motions

14
15

to Compel. For the reasons stated at the hearing and in this Order, Defendant’s First Motion to

16

Compel is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant’s Second Motion to Compel is granted

17

in part and denied in part.

18

1.

Plaintiff asserted the common interest privilege with respect to communications with third

19

party Acacia. The common interest doctrine is “an extension of the attorney client

20

privilege.” See Waller v. Financial Corp. of America, 828 F.2d 579, 583 n. 7 (9th Cir.1987).

21

“It serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the

22

attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and

23

undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel. Only those communications made in

24

the course of an ongoing common enterprise and intended to further the enterprise are

25

protected. ‘The need to protect the free flow of information from client to attorney logically

26

exists whenever multiple clients share a common interest about a legal matter,’ and it is

27

therefore unnecessary that there be actual litigation in progress for the common interest rule

28

of the attorney-client privilege to apply.” U.S. v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243–44 (2nd
Cir.1989) (citations omitted). The common interest doctrine, and the similar joint defense

doctrine, are “not privileges in and of themselves. Rather, they constitute exceptions to the

2

rule on waiver where communications are disclosed to third parties.” Nidec Corp. v. Victor

3

Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

4

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that Plaintiff and Acacia shared a common interest. Instead,

5

Plaintiff and Acacia engaged in arm’s length negotiations regarding a potential license or

6

sale of the patent-in-suit, and no agreement was reached. See Katz v. AT&T Corp., 191

7

F.R.D. 433, 438 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (finding that parties to negotiations about a license did not

8

have a common interest in part because there was no final agreement); see also, e.g., Def.’s

9

Ex. 25 (Acacia’s proposal for a relationship); Ex. 26 (Plaintiff’s counter-proposal); Ex. 27

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

(Acacia’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposal). Further, there has been no showing that there

11

was any agreement, such as a non-disclosure agreement, to keep the communications

12

confidential. Therefore, there was no common interest and Defendant’s First Motion to

13

Compel the Acacia documents is granted. Plaintiff shall produce the Acacia documents no

14

later than December 12, 2013.

15

2.

Third party Rembrandt asserted work product protection over communications with Plaintiff.

16

Defendant argues that the work product protection does not apply and that therefore, the

17

Court should order Rembrandt to produce those documents. Rembrandt is not a party to this

18

case and has not appeared before the Court on this motion. Therefore, the Court declines to

19

issue an advisory opinion about the Rembrandt documents and denies Defendant’s First

20

Motion to Compel as to those documents.

21

3.

With respect to the other issues raised in Defendant’s First Motion to Compel, as stated at the

22

hearing, no later than December 3, 2013, Plaintiff may amend its privilege log to add the

23

attorney-client privilege to communications for which Plaintiff currently claims only spousal

24

privilege, but only if Plaintiff can assert the attorney-client privilege in good faith. No later

25

than December 4, 2013, Plaintiff may submit seven documents and Defendant may submit

26

ten documents for the Court’s in camera review.

27
28

4.

Defendants Second Motion to Compel documents and supplemental interrogatory responses
regarding the offer of Jennifer McAleese, one of Plaintiff’s principals, to purchase a 10%
2

1

interest in royalties from the patent-in-suit from its patent prosecutor, Gordon Nelson, is

2

granted. Plaintiff shall produce these documents no later than December 12, 2013.

3

5.

Defendant’s Second Motion to Compel documents and interrogatory responses relating to the

4

source for payments of fees to the Patent and Trademark Office made by Plaintiff and its

5

principals is denied without prejudice.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
Dated: December 2, 2013
9

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3