Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958-8/pdf.json

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

---

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 David E. Kleinfeld, Heidi Gutierrez, Barry J. Tucker, Kyle Robertson,

Jaideep Venkatesan, and Stanley Young of HellerEhrman, LLP (“Heller attorneys”) filed

the motion on September 17, 2007. Doc. No. 634. On September 18, 2007, the following

attorneys from Day Casebeer conditionally joined in the Heller attorneys’ motion:

James R. Batchelder, Craig H. Casebeer, Christian E. Mammen, Ruchika Agrawal, Kevin K.

Leung, Howard T. Loo, William P. Nelson, Ryan Scher, Victoria Q. Smith, Bradley A.

(continued...)

05cv1958-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1958-B (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN

ORDER DETERMINING THAT THE

FEDERAL COMMON LAW SELFDEFENSE EXCEPTION TO

DISCLOSING PRIVILEGED AND/OR

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

APPLIES

[Doc. Nos. 634, 635, 643]

For the reasons stated in this order and on the record during

today’s hearing, the Court DENIES the Motion for an Order Determining

that the Federal Common Law Self-Defense Exception to Disclosing

Privileged and/or Confidential Information Applies to the Heller

Attorneys’1 Response to the Order to Show Cause [Doc. Nos. 634, 635,

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 669 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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(...continued)

Waugh, and Roy V. Zemlicka (“Day Casebeer attorneys”). Doc. No. 635. The next day,

Lee Patch filed a notice of joinder in the conditional joiner by the Day Casebeer

attorneys. Doc. No. 643. 

-2- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

643]. 

Initially, the Court finds that federal common law governs the

privilege issues in the instant dispute because the underlying case

involves federal questions of law, specifically patent law. See Fed.

R. Evid. 501; Agster v. Maricopa, 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005).

However, the Court holds that the federal self-defense exception does

not apply to the instant situation in which a client and its attorneys

are alleged to have engaged in discovery misconduct during the course

of litigation and the case has not concluded. Unlike the cases cited

in the pleadings and during the hearing (see, e.g., In re Nat’l Mortgage

Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Sec. Litig., 120 F.R.D. 687

(C.D. Cal. 1988) and Application of Friend, 411 F. Supp. 776 (S.D.N.Y.

1975)), the instant dispute does not involve a new suit or potential

suit by a third party against the attorneys nor has the client initiated

any complaints or allegations against its attorneys. Because Qualcomm

has not waived the attorney-client privilege and this Court holds that

the self-defense exception is not applicable, the attorneys’

declarations should not include privileged communications. The

declarations, however, may include information protected by the attorney

work product doctrine. Because federal common law mandates that work

product is a privilege that belongs to the attorney, the Court finds

that if the attorneys choose to waive the attorney work product

privilege in their declarations, doing so does not violate the

attorneys’ ethical duties and professional responsibilities under Rule

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 669 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

3-100 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 6068 of

the California Business and Professions Code, or other applicable

regulations. 

In light of the Court’s ruling, all of the lodged documents are to

be returned to the party who lodged them. All attorneys who wish to

file declarations or legal argument in response to the Court’s Order to

Show Cause must do so on or before October 3, 2007. If Qualcomm wishes

to provide facts regarding its role in the alleged misconduct, it must

file its declaration(s) on or before October 3, 2007. Qualcomm and

Broadcom may file pleadings responding to those filed by the attorneys

on or before October 9, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 669 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3