Oracle Amercia, Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 81

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/31/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOEL S. SANDERS, SBN 107234,
[e-mail]
G. CHARLES NIERLICH, SBN 196611,
[e-mail]
MATTHEW S. KAHN, SBN 261679,
[e-mail]
MICHAEL CECCHINI, SBN 237508,
[e-mail]
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.393.8306
Attorneys for
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 10-CV-4340-PJH (JCS)
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
PRIVILEGE LOG

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

19
20

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) has propounded its First Set of

21

Requests for Production of Documents and Things (“RFPs”) to Defendants Micron Technology, Inc.

22

and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively, “Micron”);

23

WHEREAS, Micron has responded to Oracle’s RFPs by producing documents and by

24

providing written responses, which included objections to the RFPs to the extent they request the

25

production of documents that are subject to privilege;

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

WHEREAS, Oracle and Micron have met and conferred regarding the scope of any privilege
log that Micron must provide in response to the RFPs, and have reached the following agreement;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Oracle and Micron, by and
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG
CASE NO. CV 10-4340

1
2

through their undersigned attorneys, that:
Micron shall provide a privilege log identifying documents responsive to Oracle’s First Set of

3

Requests for Production that Micron withholds on the basis of a claim of privilege; provided,

4

however, that Micron shall be permitted to maintain its assertion of privilege and shall not be

5

required to log any documents that meet all of the following criteria:

6

(1) the document must have been created or prepared on or after June 11, 2002;

7

(2) the document must have been either:

8
9

(a) created or prepared by (i) Micron’s outside litigation counsel, or any employee(s)
of such outside litigation counsel working at the direction of counsel; (ii) the inside counsel or

10

outside counsel of any DRAM manufacturer with whom Micron had a joint defense or

11

common interest in connection with litigation related to allegations of collusion among

12

DRAM manufacturers (including but not limited to Elpida, Hynix, Infineon, Micron,

13

Mitsubishi, Mosel Vitelic, Nanya, NEC, Qimonda, Samsung, Toshiba, Winbond, and any

14

predecessor or successor thereto), or any employee(s) of such counsel working at the direction

15

of counsel; or (iii) any consulting expert, testifying expert witness, jury consultant, or other

16

representative, as the term “representative” is used in Rule 26(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of

17

Civil Procedure, retained by counsel described in subsections (i) or (ii) of this paragraph, or

18

any employee(s) of such representative working at the direction of counsel; or

19

(b) a communication (i) between or among Micron’s inside counsel and/or any Micron

20

employee(s) working at the direction of Micron’s inside counsel, provided that a

21

communication will only qualify under category (i) if it (A) was made for the purpose of

22

obtaining or providing legal advice or (B) was related to any document described in paragraph

23

(a); (ii) between Micron’s inside counsel or any Micron employee(s) working at the direction

24

of Micron’s inside counsel, on the one hand, and any person described in paragraph (a), on the

25

other hand; or (iii) between Micron’s inside counsel or any Micron employee(s) working at

26

the direction of Micron’s inside counsel, on the one hand, and any other Micron employee(s),

27

on the other hand, provided that a communication will only qualify under category (iii) if it

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG
CASE NO. CV 10-4340

1

(A) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or (B) was related to any

2

document described in paragraph (a); and

3

(3) the document must not have been provided to any person other than a person described in

4

paragraph (2).

5
6

DATED: October 26, 2011

7
8

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

CROWELL & MORING LLP

9

JOEL S. SANDERS

JEROME A. MURPHY

10

By: /s/ Joel S. Sanders

By: /s/ Jerome A. Murphy

11

Joel S. Sanders

Jerome A. Murphy

12

Attorney for Defendants

Attorney for Plaintiff

13

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and
MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,
INC.

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

14
15
16

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

17

In accordance with the Northern District of California’s General Order No. 45, Section X.(B),

18

I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories

19

who are listed above.

20
21

___

22

/s/_Michael Cecchini__________
Michael Cecchini

23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG
CASE NO. CV 10-4340

1
2
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
UNIT
ED

S

10/31/11
DATED: _________________

RT
U
O

5

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

__________________________________

7

HON. JOSEPH C. SPERO o
Sper
UNITED STATESe MAGISTRATE JUDGE
seph C.
Judg Jo

101173592.1

A

H

ER

LI

RT

FO

NO

8
9

R NIA

6

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

4
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG
CASE NO. CV 10-4340