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)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED 06-17-2011* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States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?