Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEDIMMUNE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PDL BIOPHARMA, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C08-05590 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS

[Re: Docket No. 324]

In this lawsuit, plaintiff MedImmune, LLC (MedImmune) alleges, among other things,

that defendant PDL Biopharma, Inc. (PDL) breached the “most favored licensee” (MFL) clause

of the parties’ 1997 license agreement. MedImmune seeks a declaration that it is entitled to the

same license terms that PDL granted to Alexion Pharmaceuticals (Alexion), a non-party to these

proceedings, as part of a litigation settlement.

Before the court is MedImmune’s motion to compel unredacted versions of certain

emails produced by PDL. The emails in question were exchanged in the course of PDL’s

settlement negotiations with Alexion. Several of the emails in question, which PDL claims are

protected by the attorney-client privilege, were forwarded by PDL’s lead negotiator to Alexion

in the course of those settlement discussions. While there is no dispute that the attorney-client

privilege applies, the parties disagree whether there has been a waiver. And, if there has been a

waiver, the parties also dispute how broadly the waiver extends. Upon consideration of the

*E-FILED 07-26-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 688 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion

in part and denies it in part.

Preliminarily, the parties dispute whether federal law governs (as MedImmune argues)

or whether state privilege law applies (as PDL contends). Inasmuch as this is a federal question

case with pendent state law claims, and because the discovery at issue appears to have some

(albeit, perhaps peripheral) bearing on patent claims, this court will apply federal common law

of privilege here. See SNK Corp. of America v. Atlus Dream Entertainment Co., Ltd., 188

F.R.D. 566, 571 n.5 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

“The doctrine of waiver of the attorney-client privilege is rooted in notions of

fundamental fairness.” Tennenbaum v. Deloitte & Touche, 77 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir.1996). 

“Its principal purpose is to protect against the unfairness that would result from a privilege

holder selectively disclosing privileged communications to an adversary, revealing those that

support the cause while claiming the shelter of the privilege to avoid disclosing those that are

less favorable.” Id. at 340-41. “In general, a party’s voluntary disclosure of one or more

privileged communications between the party and his attorney waives the privilege as to all

communications between the party and his attorney on the same subject.” Starsight Telecast,

Inc. v. Gemstar Dev. Corp., 158 F.R.D. 650, 653 (N.D. Cal. 1994)). Nonetheless, “the

disclosure of information resulting in the waiver of the attorney-client privilege constitutes

waiver ‘only as to communications about the matter actually disclosed.’” Chevron Corp. v.

Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Weil v. Investment/Indicators,

Research & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 25 (9th Cir.1981)). There is no bright-line test for

determining the “subject matter” of a waiver. “A court ultimately must be guided by ‘the

subject matter of the documents disclosed, balanced by the need to protect the frankness of the

client disclosure and to preclude unfair partial disclosures.’” SNK Corp., 188 F.R.D. at 571

(quoting Starsight Telecast, Inc., 158 F.R.D. at 653).

In the instant case, as noted above, MedImmune contends that the privilege was waived

when PDL’s lead negotiator forwarded several privileged communications to Alexion in the

course of the PDL-Alexion settlement negotiations. Because the particular documents in

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 688 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

question have been filed under seal, their substantive contents will not be discussed here; and,

this court will describe them only at a high level of generality consistent with what has already

been revealed in the public record. There are essentially three groups of forwarded emails that,

in MedImmune’s view, effected a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. In sum, these are

(1) an email from PDL’s counsel listing nine deal points; (2) another email from PDL’s counsel

discussing one deal point in particular; and (3) several emails which appear to discuss logistics

(i.e., scheduling issues and like matters).

With respect to the first email discussing nine deal points, PDL contends that it was

never intended to be a privileged communication. Thus, says PDL, its disclosure to Alexion

cannot be the basis for any waiver. Indeed, that explanation is corroborated by the record. 

Notably, the email bears the legend: “Confidential: Subject to Parties’ Confidentiality

Agreement and FRE 408”—text which litigants typically place on their settlement

communications to the opposing party. (See Gaffney Decl., Ex. 7 at p. 000417; see also

Gaffney Decl., Ex. 8 at p. 00541). Accordingly, this court agrees that the attorney-client

privilege does not apply to this particular email. Consequently, its disclosure to Alexion did not

result in a waiver.

As for the second and third categories of emails, PDL acknowledges that these were

intended to be confidential communications between PDL and its counsel, and there is no

dispute that the attorney-client privilege applies. PDL nevertheless contends that the disclosure

of these emails to Alexion (indisputably, PDL’s adversary) did not result in a waiver because

the company (as opposed to its lead negotiator, an individual in high-level management) never

intended to waive the privilege. All indications, however, are that PDL’s lead negotiator had

full authority to do what he did. PDL has not established any facts to the contrary. Moreover,

PDL evidently was aware since at least December 2009 that some of its privileged emails had

not only been disclosed to Alexion, but had also been disclosed to MedImmune by virtue of

Alexion’s document production in response to MedImmune’s subpoena. Yet, PDL apparently

did nothing more than redact some of the same emails in its own document production that

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 688 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1 At oral argument, PDL’s counsel represented to the court that there are no

other privileged communications concerning that particular deal point.

4

Alexion had already produced (in unredacted form) to MedImmune. Accordingly, the privilege

has been waived.

Nevertheless, this court concludes that the waiver does not extend beyond the emails

that have already been disclosed to MedImmune. MedImmune argues that the waiver

necessarily extends to all privileged communications concerning the PDL-Alexion settlement. 

MedImmune further contends that such communications are likely to contain further evidence

as to the manner in which the PDL-Alexion settlement was structured—evidence that

MedImmune claims is critical to its case. This court appreciates that MedImmune certainly

would like to gather as much evidence as possible. But, as demonstrated by MedImmune’s own

arguments, the documents that have already been produced by PDL and Alexion apparently are

rife with just the kind of evidence MedImmune says it needs. Guided by principles of fairness,

and having in mind the need to protect the frankness of client disclosures, as well as the need to

preclude unfair partial disclosures, this court concludes that the disclosure of one email

discussing a particular deal point1 and several emails discussing logistical matters does not

justify a broad foray into all of PDL’s privileged communications concerning the Alexion

settlement.

Finally, a word about the work product doctrine. At the very end of its motion,

MedImmune makes a passing request for an order compelling PDL to produce all relevant work

product. (See Mot. at 5). “Waiver of the attorney-client privilege, however, does not

necessarily lead to waiver of work product immunity.” SNK Corp., 188 F.R.D. at 571. In any

event, this court declines to order the production of the requested work product when that issue

was not properly briefed, much less argued, on the instant motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

July 26, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 688 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice electronically mailed to: 

Aaron P. Maurer amaurer@wc.com

Aaron Y Huang aaron.huang@weil.com, danielle.delorio@weil.com

Dana Johannes Finberg darthur@sonnenschein.com, wballew@sonnenschein.com

David Isaac Berl dberl@wc.com

David Isaac Gindler DGindler@Irell.com, dlieberman@irell.com

Gerson Avery Zweifach gzweifach@wc.com

Gregory Hull greg.hull@weil.com, rebecca.kraus@weil.com

Jason George Sheasby , ESQ JSheasby@Irell.com, ewong@irell.com, mdonovan@irell.com

Jeffrey E. Faucette jfaucette@tcolaw.com, cdunbar@tcolaw.com, cwoodrich@tcolaw.com,

mcianfrani@tcolaw.com

Jessamyn Sheli Berniker jberniker@wc.com

Joshua H. Lerner jlerner@durietangri.com, jcotton@durietangri.com,

records@durietangri.com

Kate Dyer kdyer@clarencedyer.com, achin@clarencedyer.com, adoust@clarencedyer.com

Matthew Kevin Wisinski matthew.wisinski@leclairryan.com, karen.greer@leclairryan.com

Paul B. Gaffney pgaffney@wc.com

Paullette Christine Deruelle christine.deruelle@weil.com

Raymond Angelo LaMagna rlamagna@irell.com, slee@irell.com

T. Ray Guy ray.guy@weil.com

Thomas S Fletcher TFletcher@wc.com, jmcnichols@wc.com, jrydstrom@wc.com

Vernon Michael Winters vern.winters@weil.com, nettie.asiasi@weil.com

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.

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 688 Filed 07/26/10 Page 5 of 5