Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03364/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03364-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE NETOPIA, INC. SECURITIES

LITIGATION,

This document Relates to:

All Actions __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-3364 RMW (PVT)

And Related Cases

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

On October 17, 2006 Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

responsive to their First, Second and Third Requests for Production of Documents (the

"Document Requests"). Plaintiffs seek to compel production of documents withheld and

redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, claiming that any

privilege or immunity has either not been established or has been waived. The Court held a

hearing on November 28, 2006. The parties raised complicated and unsettled issues of law in

their briefs and at oral argument. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall

submit further briefing addressing solely the following topics:

1. Did the testimony of Netopia employees before the SEC waive the attorney-client

privilege and/or work product immunity because there was no agreement in place

covering the confidentiality of testimony?

2. How do the purposes behind the attorney-client privilege and the work product

Case 5:04-cv-03364-RMW Document 165 Filed 12/04/06 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

ORDER, page 2

immunity support either a waiver or non-waiver from disclosure to the SEC?

3. Defendants shall explain why they have not asserted that most of the documents

which they claim are protected by the work product immunity were created in

anticipation of litigation. Defendants shall either withdraw the designation of

documents as covered by the work product immunity or address why the

documents are properly designated.

4. Plaintiffs shall distinguish this case from In re Mckesson HBOC, Inc. 2005 WL

934331 (March 31, 2005), giving particular attention to Judge Whyte’s finding

that the work product immunity was not waived by disclosure to the SEC.

5. Have Defendants attempted to use the findings of the internal investigation to

gain a benefit in this litigation? Defendants shall explain which, if any,

documents created by counsel for Netopia’s audit committee were disclosed to the

SEC.

6. Partial disclosure effects a waiver as to the subject matter disclosed. Defendants

claim that any waiver should not involve communications with outside counsel. 

Why should a subject matter waiver be limited to conversations with a particular

attorney?

7. Counsel for Defendants shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury stating

whether they have access to the interview notes or other confidential documents

from the internal investigation. Both sides shall briefly address whether such

possession indicate a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/or work product

immunity?

8. What is the authority for withholding documents under European privacy

regulations, especially documents in the custody of entities within the United

States?

//

//

//

Case 5:04-cv-03364-RMW Document 165 Filed 12/04/06 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

ORDER, page 3

9. Does being copied on correspondence rise to the level of reasonable cause to

believe that an attorney is a participant in a crime or fraud such that the

crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2006

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03364-RMW Document 165 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 3