Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-md-02777/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-md-02777-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP 

ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES 

PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION. 

Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (JSC) 

ORDER RE: ECF NO. 391 DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE 

 The Court has reviewed in camera certain documents that Bosch has withheld or redacted 

based on the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. The Court addresses in this 

Order whether the documents can be withheld or redacted on this basis. 

1. Bosch has withheld 20 documents in their entirety based on the work-product doctrine. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). The documents are internal Bosch emails from the week of 

September 20, 2015, and attachments to those emails, which are mostly earlier emails from the 

2012–2013 time frame that discuss Bosch emissions-software used in certain Fiat Chrysler 

vehicles. Bosch notes in the parties’ joint discovery letter that the 2015 emails were exchanged 

the week after EPA issued a Notice of Violation to Volkswagen, on September 18, 2015, and 

Bosch asserts that the 2015 emails were prepared, and the attachments were assembled, in 

anticipation of litigation. The documents do not reflect that. 

The 2015 emails are between Bosch engineers and project managers. Attorneys were not 

copied on the emails and the emails do not indicate that the review of the earlier emails and 

documents was performed under the direction of an attorney or “because of the prospect of 

litigation.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). 

Case 3:17-md-02777-EMC Document 431 Filed 10/12/18 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 Californi

a

Instead, the 2015 emails and their attachments suggest that the review was conducted for business 

reasons such as to prepare for customer and publicity inquiries. Because Bosch has not 

demonstrated that the documents in question were prepared or assembled in anticipation of 

litigation, the work-product doctrine does not apply and the documents are discoverable. Bosch 

shall produce the documents by Tuesday, October 16. 

2. In five internal documents without an attorney sender or recipient, Bosch has redacted 

certain information based on the attorney-client privilege. Bosch asserts that the privilege is 

warranted because its employees either requested or transmitted legal advice in these documents. 

For the documents with beginning bates numbers ending in 2357, 4389, 5310 and 6429, the 

attorney-client privilege does not apply to the redacted information. Bosch shall produce nonredacted copies of these documents by Tuesday, October 16. For the document with a beginning 

bates number ending in 5436, the attorney-client privilege applies to the redacted information. 

Bosch need not produce an unredacted version of this document. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2018 

______________________________________ 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-md-02777-EMC Document 431 Filed 10/12/18 Page 2 of 2