Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04018/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04018-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTERGRAPH HARDWARE

TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 06-04018 MHP

ORDER

Re: Discovery of English Translations of

Foreign Documents

On December 4, 2006 the court ordered the parties to submit position statements on an issue

arising from their Joint Case Management Statement. The dispute concerns the discovery of certain

translations of the Toshiba defendants’ (“Toshiba”) documents from Japanese to English. Toshiba

has agreed to produce any relevant, pre-existing English translations of Japanese documents but

argues that translations prepared in connection with litigation are protected work product. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). 

The translations themselves are not work product ipso facto. See, e.g., Contreras v. Isuzu

Motors, Ltd. of Japan, No. SA-98-CA-442 JWP, 1999 WL 33290667, *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 1999)

(concluding, in a similar context, that production of translations prepared for both business purposes

and for litigation purposes would not violate work product doctrine). Rather, Toshiba argues that

counsel’s selection of certain documents for translation in preparation for litigation would

necessarily reveal opinion work product. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947) (discussing

the need for protecting the processes of “assembl[ing] information [and] sift[ing] what [the attorney]

considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts”). While the selection of certain documents for

Case 3:06-cv-04018-MHP Document 61 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

translation might reveal opinion work product, there is simply no need for counsel’s decisions to be

revealed here. To avoid the disclosure of these decisions, Toshiba should produce all responsive

translations without indicating whether or not they were prepared for litigation purposes. Moreover,

requiring Intergraph to re-translate documents would be needlessly duplicative and burdensome. 

Therefore, the court orders that Toshiba produce all responsive translations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-04018-MHP Document 61 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2