United States of America et al v. Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. et al

Filing 105

DISCOVERY ORDER re: 104 Supplemental Discovery Letter Brief Relator STF, LLC's Response to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixon's Discovery Order on April 2, 2021 filed by STF, LLC. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 4/7/2021. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2021)

Case 3:16-cv-02043-TSH Document 105 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 1

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7

Case No. 16-cv-02043-TSH
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 104

8

CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE, INC., et al.,

9

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The discovery dispute regarding the withheld documents is now down to six documents,

12

five of which were withheld in full and one of which was redacted. ECF No. 104. The Court has

13

reviewed the documents in camera.

14

In camera review has its limitations, in particular when there is a work product claim that

15

communications between non-attorneys reflect the substance of communications with litigation

16

counsel, which is the claim here. Sometimes the person will say “the lawyer said…,” and then

17

you know work product is being conveyed. But other times the lawyer who is familiar with the

18

context of the communication will know perfectly well whether his or her advice is being parroted,

19

but the reader won’t be able to definitively figure that out just by reading the communication. In

20

short, the context matters.

21

That seems to be the situation here. Based on the dates and subject matter of these

22

documents, they could be attorney work product, even though they are communications between

23

non-attorneys. Because the claim to work product protection is plausible, the Court sustains it and

24

denies Defendants’ motion to compel as to these documents.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2021

27
28

THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge