Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02071/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02071-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THELEN REID & PRIEST, LLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCOIS MARLAND,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-2071 VRW (EMC)

SECOND ORDER RE IN CAMERA

REVIEW

Judge Walker has referred to the undersigned a discovery matter concerning documents over

which Plaintiff Thelen Reid & Priest claimed privileged. Pursuant to Judge Walker’s order of

February 21, 2007, Thelen Reid produced these documents to the Court for an in camera review. 

Thelen also identified ten documents on its amended privilege log which it believes should be

withheld based on the exception set forth in Judge Walker’s order. Having reviewed Thelen’s

submission and the documents at issue, the Court hereby rules as follows.

I. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Thelen does not dispute that the following

documents on its amended privilege log should be produced pursuant to Judge Walker’s order of

February 21: Items Nos. 1-6, 10-18, 20-45, 47-48, and 50-60. Thelen only argues that it should be

allowed to redact Items Nos. 47 and 48 because they contain confidential and proprietary

information unrelated to the case. Similarly, Thelen does not dispute that all nine of the documents

on its log of redacted documents should be produced pursuant to the February 21 order. Thelen only

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 154 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

argues that it should be allowed to redact Items Nos. 4-6 because they contain confidential and

proprietary information unrelated to the case. 

The Court has reviewed Items Nos. 47 and 48 on the privilege log and Items Nos. 4-6 on the

log of redacted documents. Because the documents do contain confidential and proprietary

information unrelated to the case, the Court shall allow Thelen to redact that information from the

documents. Thelen is advised that the redactions must be narrowly tailored. For example, for Item

No. 47, Thelen may redact the information related to “Financial Results” except for that information

discussing payment of DOI fees and, for Item No. 5, Thelen may redact only the information at item

1 on TRP 010566. Except for the redactions for confidential and proprietary information unrelated

to the case, Thelen shall produce all documents listed above to Mr. Marland. Thelen shall also lodge

with this Court a confirmatory copy of all such redacted documents (reflecting the specific

redactions).

As for the remaining ten documents which Thelen believes should be withheld pursuant to

Judge Walker’s February 21 order, the Court orders that some documents shall be produced but

others may be withheld. 

Per Judge Walker’s order, conclusions of consultations between Thelen lawyers are not

protected by the attorney-client privilege if they discuss:

! claims that Mr. Marland might have against Thelen, 

! known errors in Thelen’s representation of Mr. Marland, 

! known conflicts in Thelen’s representation of Mr. Marland, or 

! other circumstances that triggered Thelen’s duty to advise Mr. Marland and obtain his

consent. 

See VRW Order of 2/21/07, at 16. Under this standard, the following documents shall be produced:

Items Nos. 9, 49, 61, and 64. The remaining items may be withheld because they do not contain

sufficiently explicit discussion of, e.g., claims, known errors, or known conflicts. 

In order to facilitate a review by Judge Walker, the Court hereby files, in conjunction with

this order, a sealed order which addresses why Items Nos. 9, 49, 61, and 64 should be produced. 

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 154 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

This sealed order (titled “Third Order re In Camera Review”) is for Judge Walker’s eyes only; no

copy shall be sent to either Thelen or Mr. Marland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 154 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3