Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al
Filing
524
Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 497 defendants' Motion to Compel Documents. 6/21/2011 hearing is vacated. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2011)
1
2
*E-FILED 06-17-2011*
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. C08-04990 JW (HRL)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS
v.
[Re: Docket No. 497]
14
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and
RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
Defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation
19
(collectively, RIM) move for an order compelling plaintiff Mformation Technologies, Inc. to
20
produce several documents which Mformation previously produced, but then later “clawed
21
back,” asserting that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. There is no apparent
22
dispute as to the relevance of the information. RIM contends that the documents are not
23
privileged or otherwise protected from discovery. Mformation opposes the motion.1 The matter
24
is deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument, and the June 21, 2011 hearing
25
is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this
26
court grants the motion.
27
28
Although Mformation’s opposition papers were belatedly filed, this court has
considered them. The court does not, however, condone the failure to timely comply with
filing deadlines.
1
The instant dispute may overlap somewhat with the issues in Mformation’s motion to
1
2
quash pending in the Central District of California. This court, however, is not persuaded that
3
the two motions are duplicative. RIM convincingly argues that the two motions concern
4
different documents and different asserted legal bases for Mformation’s objection to the
5
discovery. Mformation’s request to strike the instant motion to compel therefore is denied, as is
6
Mformation’s request that this court simply issue an order consistent with whatever ruling
7
issues from the Central District of California on plaintiff’s pending motion to quash.
With respect to the several documents at issue here, Mformation has redacted portions
8
9
of two documents and withheld one document entirely on the ground that the information is
protected by the attorney-client privilege. Suffice to say that Mformation has made no attempt
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
to substantiate its claim that the privilege applies. It does not deny that the documents and
12
information in question were not authored or received by any attorney. Instead, Mformation
13
simply refers this court to the motion to quash papers filed in the Central District of California
14
in which Mformation argues at length about why the work product doctrine applies to a
15
different set of documents. Moreover, based on the record presented, this court is persuaded
16
that the information in question was generated purely for business purposes. See, e.g., United
17
States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If the advice sought is not legal advice,
18
but, for example, accounting advice from an accountant, then the privilege does not exist.”).
19
As for the attorney work product doctrine, Mformation did not assert that doctrine in its
20
privilege log as a basis for withholding the subject documents. And, plaintiff offers no cogent
21
reason why this court should entertain arguments as to why that doctrine applies here.
22
Accordingly, RIM’s motion to compel is granted.2 Mformation shall produce the
23
subject documents in unredacted form within 14 days from the date of this order. To the extent
24
25
RIM also contends that it is entitled to discovery of the subject documents,
asserting that plaintiff’s damages expert, Roy Weinstein, considered certain information in
forming his opinion. Mformation objects that RIM submitted Weinstein’s deposition
testimony for the first time only in its reply papers. But, that deposition apparently did not
take place until after the instant motion was filed. In any event, Mformation disagrees with
RIM’s assertions as to what Weinstein considered. This court need not resolve this
particular issue because it otherwise finds sufficient reasons to grant RIM’s motion.
2
26
27
28
2
1
defendants believe that a further expert report or other discovery is warranted, they will need to
2
address that issue with the presiding judge.
3
4
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 17, 2011
5
HOWARD R. LLOYD
6
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
5:08-cv-04990-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Aaron D. Charfoos
3
Allen A. Arntsen
4
Amardeep Lal Thakur
5
Christopher R. Liro
6
Eugene Goryunov
7
Justin E. Gray
8
Linda S. DeBruin ldebruin@kirkland.com, bridgett.ofosu@kirkland.com,
kathleen.cawley@kirkland.com, margaret.burke@kirkland.com
acharfoos@kirkland.com
aarntsen@foley.com, psorensen@foley.com
athakur@foley.com, dgrimes@foley.com
christopher.liro@kirkland.com
egoryunov@kirkland.com
jegray@foley.com, dgrimes@foley.com
9
Lisa Marie Noller
lnoller@foley.com
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Marc Howard Cohen marc.cohen@kirkland.com, frank.carlow@kirkland.com,
lesley.ahlberg@kirkland.com, mary.nguyen@kirkland.com
12
Maria A. Maras
13
Meredith Zinanni meredith.zinanni@kirkland.com, cassandra.milleville@kirkland.com,
kimberly.davenport@kirkland.com
maria.maras@kirkland.com
14
Michael Anthony Parks
mparks@thompsoncoburn.com
15
Michael Daley Karson
michael.karson@kirkland.com
16
Michael S Feldberg
michael.feldberg@allenovery.com
17
Shawn Edward McDonald
SEMcDonald@foley.com
18
Tiffany Patrice Cunningham
tiffany.cunningham@kirkland.com
19
20
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?