Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP et al

Filing 99

STIPULATION AND ORDER AS AMENDED BY THE COURT re 98 Stipulation filed by Thomas D Kohler, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/23/2009. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP ELLIOT R. PETERS - #158708 WENDY J. THURM - #163558 STEVEN P. RAGLAND - #221076 JOHN E. TRINIDAD - #250468 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP and THOMAS D. KOHLER CLARK S. STONE - #202123 STEVEN M. LEVITAN - #148716 INCHAN A. KWON - #247614 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 2033 Gateway Place, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC

** E-filed December 23, 2009 **

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, a limited liability partnership; and THOMAS D. KOHLER, an individual, Defendants. Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AS AMENDED BY THE COURT Judge: Hon. Howard R. Lloyd Courtroom 2, 5th Floor Re: Docket No. 86

1
464279.02

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff Landmark Screens, LLC ("Landmark") and Defendants Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP ("MLB") and Thomas D. Kohler ("Kohler") as follows: WHEREAS, in a privilege log produced in a state court action and prepared by MLB's former counsel, MLB partners Michael Bloom and Thomas Kittredge were listed as recipients of three privileged documents (the "Disputed Documents"); WHEREAS, in a privilege log produced in this federal court action, Michael Bloom and Thomas Kittredge were not listed as recipients of the Disputed Documents; WHEREAS, MLB's current counsel informed Landmark that the state court privilege log incorrectly listed Mr. Bloom and Mr. Kittredge as recipients of the Disputed Documents, and that such errors had been corrected in the federal court privilege log. WHEREAS, Landmark requested that the Disputed Documents be submitted for in camera review so that the recipients could be verified; WHEREAS, MLB agreed to submit the Disputed Documents for in camera review solely for the purpose of verifying the recipients of these documents, as stated in letters dated August 11, 2009 and September 23, 2009; WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Landmark filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld as Privileged, claiming in part that the Disputed Documents "indicate that MLB partners Michael Bloom and Thomas Kittredge, in-house counsel to MLB, were apprised of `anticipated litigation' as early as April 11, 2005." Docket No. 86, at 7; WHEREAS the parties agree that the Court can efficiently and fairly resolve this dispute and thereby narrow the contested issues presented in Landmark's December 1, 2009 Motion to Compel; NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, through their respective counsel of record, that: (1) MLB shall be permitted to submit the Disputed Documents, bearing bates numbers MLBFED0002576, MLBFED0002577, and MLBFED0002578, to the Court ex parte for in camera review for the sole purpose of determining if Michael Bloom and/or Thomas Kittredge 2

464279.02

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

are listed as recipients of the Disputed Documents; (2) The submission of the Disputed Documents for in camera review for this purpose shall be without prejudice to the Court's consideration of whether in camera review of the Disputed Documents may be necessary to resolve other disputes regarding the Disputed Documents, as described in Landmark's December 1, 2009 Motion to Compel; and (3) The submission of the Disputed Documents for in camera review shall not constitute the waiver of any privilege or protection afforded to the Disputed Documents.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 22, 2009

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: /s/ Wendy J. Thurm WENDY J. THURM Attorneys for Defendants MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP and THOMAS D. KOHLER Dated: December 22, 2009 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

By: /s/ Clark S. Stone CLARK S. STONE Attorneys for Plaintiff LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X.B. regrinding nonfiling signatories, Wendy J. Thurm hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order has been obtained from Clark S. Stone.

3
464279.02

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. MLB shall submit the Disputed Documents to the court by December 28, 2009. December 23 2009 Dated: ______________________, _______

HON. HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge

4
464279.02

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF