Magna Electronics, Inc. v. Valeo, Incorporated et al

Filing 193

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Attachments: # A) (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-11376
HON. AVERN COHN

-vsVALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
VALEO S.A.; VALEO GMBH;
VALEO SCHALTER UND
SENSOREN GMBH; and
CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.,
Defendants.
______________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW
I.
This is a patent case. Now before the Court is
Defendants’ Request for In Camera Review of Documents
Magna is Withholding as Privileged or Work Product (Doc.
179).
A listing of relevant papers subsequent to the Request follow:
•

Magna’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal (Doc.
180) (Doc. 182)

•

Identification of Exemplary Documents for In Camera Review (Doc.
185)

•

Order Granting Request for In Camera Review (Doc. 186)

•

Magna’s Submission of Documents for In Camera Review (Doc.
189)

•

Defendants’ Response to Magna’s Submission of Documents for In
Camera Review (Doc. 190).
This Memorandum resolves the Request and sets forth the documents which
1

must be disclosed and the documents which are protected by attorney-client and work
product privilege.
As an initial matter, the law relating to privilege is well known and need not be
repeated here. The most recent articulation can be found in the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Spaulding Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800
(Fed. Cir. 2000).

II.
A.
The documents submitted for In Camera review have been lodged with the Court
in a three-ring binder labeled
•

Magna’s Resubmission of Documents for In Camera Review
Pursuant to Court Order
B.

The documents in question are divided into four (4) categories, as follows:
A.

Documents for Which No Lawyer Is Identified as an Author or
Recipient
•

•

B.

Identified authors and recipients are not lawyers: Clawback
Log Entries MAGE00004211, MAGE00008653-655,
MAGE00053690-696, MAGE00156090, and
MAGE00222580.
No author or recipient is identified: Non-Email Log Entries 412, 448,
496, 546, and 1157.

Documents for Which Magna’s Basis for Claiming Privilege Is that
the Documents Contain Information from the Client
2

•

C.

Draft Communications
•

D.

Non-Email Log Entries 50, 190, 251, 276, 449, 450, 452,
453, 491, and 495.

Clawback Log Entries MAGE00008697-700,
MAGE00008746-751, MAGE00132334-343, and
MAGE00133964-966, and MAGE00144013-014.

Documents Related to Patent Prosecution that Were Not
Communicated to Anyone at Magna
•

Non-Email Log Entries 192, 195, 411, 413, 430, 851, 855,
and 1111.
C.

The Court has reviewed the documents. Attached are the results of the review.
The documents labeled yes are neither work product nor privileged; the documents
labeled no are either privileged or work product. Particularly, many of them are drafts of
prior applications for patents; as such they are privileged. See McCook Metals, LLC v.
Alcoa, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 242252-53 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 4/26/2018
Detroit, Michigan

3