Gen-Probe Incorporated v. Becton Dickinson and Company
Filing
408
ORDER Overruling Gen-Probe's Objections to May 30, 2012 Order Resolving Joint Motion for Resolution of Discovery Dispute (Do. No. 359 ). Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/18/2012.(knb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEN-PROBE INCORPORATED,
12
13
CASE NO. 09-cv-2319 – BEN (NLS)
Plaintiff,
ORDER OVERRULING GENPROBE’S OBJECTIONS TO MAY
30, 2012 ORDER RESOLVING
JOINT MOTION FOR
RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE (TWENTIETH
DISPUTE)
vs.
14
15
16
BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
Defendant.
[Doc. No. 359]
17
18
This is a patent infringement action. Plaintiff Gen-Probe Incorporated (“Gen-Probe”) alleges
19
that Defendant Becton Dickinson & Company (“BD”) infringes its Automation Patents. Presently
20
before the Court are Gen-Probe’s objections to Magistrate Judge Stormes’ May 30, 2012 Order
21
resolving the parties’ joint motion for resolution of a discovery dispute (“May 30, 2012 Order”). BD
22
filed a response to the objections. Having considered the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons set
23
forth below, the Court OVERRULES Gen-Probe’s objections to the May 30, 2012 Order.
24
BACKGROUND
25
As Judge Stormes’ Order explains, Gen-Probe contracted with RELA, Inc. to develop an
26
automated nucleic acid detection system in 1996. RELA hired Mark Toukan as an independent
27
contractor to work on the project. Gen-Probe claims that everyone working on the project was
28
required to assign their rights to anything resulting from the project to RELA, although a copy of Mr.
-1-
09cv2319
1
Toukan’s contact assigning his rights cannot be located. In 2002, one of Gen-Probe’s outside patent
2
attorney’s, Richard Wydeven, contacted Mr. Toukan about his work on the project by email and phone.
3
These communications are the subject of this discovery dispute.
4
This dispute was initially brought before the Magistrate Judge in the parties’ fifteenth discovery
5
dispute. Judge Stormes found that the communications were subject to the attorney-client privilege
6
because Mr. Toukan was the equivalent of an employee. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Stormes
7
accepted Gen-Probe’s assertion in its privilege log that all the communications related to “patent
8
application” and “patent matters” and Gen-Probe’s assertion that Mr. Wydeven communicated with
9
Mr. Toukan about matters of patentability.
10
The issue arose again during the deposition of Gen-Probe’s Chief Intellectual Property
11
Counsel. The witness was instructed not to answer numerous questions as protected by the attorney-
12
client privilege. In response, the parties filed their twentieth discovery dispute in which BD sought
13
to compel the production of communications between Mr. Wydeven and Mr. Toukan. On May 22,
14
2012, Judge Stormes ordered Gen-Probe to produce the Wyveden-Toukan communications for in
15
camera review. After conducting an in-camera review, Judge Stormes found that the primary purpose
16
of the communications was to obtain an assignment of rights from Mr. Toukan and ordered the
17
documents produced. Gen-Probe objects to that order and seeks to reestablish the privilege over those
18
communications.
19
Gen-Probe asserts that the communications concern only a patentability investigation
20
conducted to provide legal advice to Gen-Probe and the communications are protected by the attorney-
21
client privilege. BD claims that the communications were an attempt to obtain an assignment of Mr.
22
Toukan’s rights as an inventor and that Mr. Toukan is in fact an omitted inventor of a component of
23
the Automation Patents, making the communications relevant to Gen-Probe’s standing and BD’s
24
invalidity defense.
25
LEGAL STANDARD
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that whenever a magistrate judge issues a
27
written order deciding a non-dispositive pretrial matter, “[a] party may serve and file objections to the
28
order within 14 days after being served with a copy.” “The district judge in the case must consider
-2-
09cv2319
1
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary
2
to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The magistrate
3
judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters is entitled to “great deference” by the district court. See
4
United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). To conclude that a magistrate
5
judge’s decision was clearly erroneous, the district court must arrive at a “‘definite and firm conviction
6
that a mistake has been committed.’” Folb v. Motion Picture Indus. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.
7
Supp. 2d 1164, 1168 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citation omitted), aff’d, 216 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000); see also
8
Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602,
9
622 (1993).
10
DISCUSSION
11
Gen-Probe objects to Judge Stormes’ finding that the overall purpose of the communications
12
between Mr. Wydeven and Mr. Toukan was to obtain an assignment of rights rather than to obtain
13
legal services. In determining whether the attorney-client privilege applies, “the central inquiry is
14
whether the communication is one that was made by a client to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining
15
legal advice or services.” In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800, 805 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
16
As Judge Stormes acknowledged, just the inclusion of the assignment of rights in a document does
17
not destroy the privilege, if the overall tenor of the document indicates a request for legal advice or
18
services. Id. at 806.
19
After reviewing the communications in camera, Judge Stormes determined that the
20
communications were an effort by Gen-Probe to convince Mr. Toukan to assign his rights in the
21
invention and as such, were not confidential communications for the purpose of securing legal advice.
22
As Judge Stormes explained, the communications were about obtaining Mr. Toukan’s assignment of
23
his rights as an inventor. Gen-Probe’s claim that Mr. Toukan would have already assigned his rights
24
as part of his work for RELA does not change the substance of the communications. The
25
communications focus almost entirely on obtaining an assignment of Mr. Toukan’s rights as an
26
inventor. The initial email seeks to confirm Mr. Toukan’s contribution to the invention of the
27
luminometer and every following communication seeks an assignment of Mr. Toukan’s rights.
28
///
-3-
09cv2319
1
2
Having reviewed Gen-Probe’s objections, the Court concludes that Judge Stormes’
determination was neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.”
3
4
5
6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Gen-Probe’s objections to the May 30, 2012 Order are
OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
DATED: July 18, 2012
9
10
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
09cv2319
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?