Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00686/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00686-68/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIDEC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-0686 SBA (EMC)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT LETTER

OF JULY 24, 2007

(Docket No. 761)

On July 24, 2007, the parties filed a joint letter addressing Nidec’s contention that JVC

should be compelled to produce the following documents: (1) a litigation abstract, (2) the larger

document from which the abstract was “lifted,” (3) all documents referenced therein, and (4) all

other documents related to JVC’s perceptions of settlement positions, the parties’ claims, and JVC’s

assessment of the case at that time. Having considered the joint letter and all other evidence of

record, the Court hereby DENIES Nidec’s motion to compel.

The starting point of the Court’s analysis is the litigation abstract. At the hearing on the

motions to quash, JVC clarified for the first time that the litigation abstract was not specifically

prepared by JVC for prospective buyers (in which case the document would simply have a business

purpose and not a litigation purpose). Rather, the litigation abstract is an excerpt of a larger

document previously prepared by JVC counsel because of Nidec’s claims of patent infringement. In

the joint letter, JVC further clarifies that the larger document was a PowerPoint presentation and was

prepared shortly after the instant litigation began by in-house JVC counsel at the direction of outside

counsel.

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 763 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Under these circumstances, the litigation abstract -- as well as the larger document of which

it was a part -- is work product. The litigation abstract was prepared in anticipation of litigation by

and for JVC. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Moreover, because counsel for JVC prepared the

litigation abstract, it is more than likely that the document constitutes opinion work product. See id.

(noting that, “[i]n ordering discovery of [work product] when the required showing has been made,

the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal

theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation”).

Nidec contends that, even if the litigation abstract were work product, that privilege was

waived when JVC distributed the document to prospective buyers. For work product, “protection is

waived where disclosure of the otherwise privileged documents is made to a third party, and that

disclosure enables an adversary to gain access to the information.” United States v. Bergonzi, 216

F.R.D. 487, 497 (N.D. Cal. 2003). According to Nidec, JVC and the prospective buyers were

adversaries because the two had opposing interests, and so the work product privilege was waived.

While JVC and the prospective buyers undoubtedly had different interests with respect to the

purchase and sale of the majority interest in JVC, this did make JVC and the prospective buyers

adversaries for purposes of work product analysis. Even if the presence of an adversarial

relationship does not depend on the existence of litigation, see In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 229 F.R.D.

636, 646 n.8 (C.D. Cal. 2005), for parties to be adversaries, there must be at the very least a potential

for litigation between them. See id. (“Here, there is no doubt that, in the context of Syncor’s illegal

activity, the Government was Syncor’s adversary.”). Thus, for example, “[i]n McMorgan [& Co. v.

First Cal. Mortg. Co., 931 F. Supp. 703 (N.D. Cal. 1996)], the court found work product protection

waived where McMorgan, the disclosing party, shared its information with the DOL in connection

with its investigation of potential violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

because there was the potential that McMorgan was the target of DOL investigation as the

investment manager for pension trust funds.” Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. at 497-98. In the instant case,

there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that JVC and the prospective buyers were adversaries

because, at the time of the disclosure, litigation between the parties was nothing but the remotest of

possibilities. 

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 763 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 4
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

The only question therefore is whether the disclosure by JVC to the prospective buyers

“substantially increased” the likelihood that the work product would fall into the hands of Nidec. 

Both Nidec and JVC agree that this is the proper standard. See Joint Letter at 3, 7 (citing Bank

Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais, 160 F.R.D. 437, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (using the “substantially

increase” language); Goff v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 240 F.R.D. 659, 661 (D. Nev. 2007) (same));

see also United States v. AT&T Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“The purpose of the

work product doctrine is to protect information against opposing parties, rather than against all

others outside a confidential relationship, in order to encourage effective trial preparation.”); Bank

Brussels Lambert, 160 F.R.D. at 448 (“Here, disclosure of the Coudert Letter or the Dinell

Memorandum to the Bank Group would not have increased the probability that Mr. Wells, the

presumed adversary, would obtain them, and therefore no waiver of work product protection

occurred.”); Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2024 (“[T]he purpose of the work-product rule is

not to protect the evidence from disclosure to the outside world but rather to protect it only from the

knowledge of opposing counsel and his client, thereby preventing its use against the lawyer

gathering the materials.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court concludes that the disclosure of the litigation abstract to the prospective buyers

did not substantially increase the likelihood that the document would fall into the hands of Nidec. 

The documents in the data room that were made available to the prospective buyers -- including the

litigation abstract -- were only made accessible to prospective buyers that entered into a

confidentiality agreement. Furthermore, technological security measures were used to protect the

documents in the data room. Given these facts, the disclosure of the litigation abstract did not

constitute a waiver of the work product privilege.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 763 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, the Court shall not compel JVC to produce to Nidec, either the litigation

abstract, the larger document from which the litigation abstract was “lifted,” the documents

referenced therein, or any other documents related to JVC’s perceptions of settlement positions, the

parties’ claims, and JVC’s assessment of the case at that time.

This order disposes of Docket No. 761

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 763 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 4