Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER re 44 Redacted Joint Letter Brief filed by Apple Computer, Inc., and 54 Joint Sealed Letter filed by Podfitness, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc. Re: Document Numer PF001014. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 2/4/8. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2008)

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc.

Doc. 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. PODFITNESS, INC., Defendant(s). _________________________________/ The Court has received a Joint Letter from the parties dated June 8, 2007 [Docket Nos. 44, 54], regarding Document Number PF 001014. In the Joint Letter, Defendant asserts that the document is protected by the attorney-client privilege, that the privilege has not been waived, that the document was inadvertently produced, and that it must be returned. Plaintiff disputes all of these contentions. The Court finds that a portion of the document reflects a privileged communication from counsel for Defendant to Defendant. The document was inadvertently produced. The inadvertent production was promptly brought to the attention of Plaintiff by Defendant. Under the Protective Order in this case, Paragraph 12, the privileged information must be returned to Defendant unless there is some waiver of the privilege other than on the basis of production of the document in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant waived the privilege by disclosure to a non-employee of Defendant is not supported by the facts recited in the Joint Letter. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the document at issue be returned to Defendant and a redacted version substituted in its place. The only redaction shall be in the second paragraph, second sentence, starting after the word "information" and continuing to the end of that APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff(s), Case No. C-06-05805 SBA (JCS) ORDER RE JOINT LETTER [Docket Nos. 44 (sealed) and 54 (public)] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

sentence. Plaintiff may take the deposition of Dave Malone on whether he was employed by Defendant at the time of the meeting reflected in the document. It may make an application for disclosure of the redacted information if that deposition and other information establishes that Mr. Malone was not employed by Defendant at the time of the meeting in question. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2008 _________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

2