Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00100/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00100-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

DEPOMED, INC., No. C-06-0100 CRB (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW

v. RELATING TO MOTION TO COMPEL

[Docket Nos. 103/105]

IVAX CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

The Court received a joint letter dated May 23, 2007, in which Defendant seeks to compel

the Plaintiff to produce copies of a memorandum denominated the “Heines Memo” ( the “Motion to

Compel”) [Docket Nos. 103/105]. The Court has reviewed the Heines Memo in camera, as well as a

cover memo from John W. Shell to Dr. Peter Timmins at Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) dated

April 16, 1997 (the “Cover Memo”) that accompanied the delivery of the Heines Memo to BMS.

Plaintiff transmitted the Heines Memo to BMS. Defendant asserts that this waived the

attorney-client privilege for the Heines Memo and related documents. Plaintiff argues that there was

no such waiver because of the existence of a common-interest privilege in this case. See, e.g.,

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 115 F.R.D. 308, 310-12 (N.D. Cal. 1987). In order to

show a common-interest privilege, Plaintiff must demonstrate a common goal and that the

documents or communications in question further that common interest. See U.S. v. Bergonzi, 216

F.R.D. 487, 496 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

Here, Plaintiff and BMS entered into a joint development agreement dated July 11, 1996. 

This joint development interest clearly created common goals. The only question that remains is

whether the communication of the Heines Memo was in furtherance of those goals. Having

Case 3:06-cv-00100-CRB Document 115 Filed 06/19/07 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

1

 Nor was there any waiver due to production of these documents in discovery, either in this

case or in any other case. In a previous case, Plaintiff produced the documents in question to BMS –

who had every right to review them without waiver under the common-interest privilege. In the instant

case, the parties have specifically agreed that the inadvertent production of privileged documents will

not constitute a waiver.

2

reviewed the Cover Memo and the Heines Memo in camera, the Court finds that the Heines Memo

was communicated to BMS to further the parties’ common interest. Accordingly, there was no

waiver of the attorney-client privilege by communication of the Heines Memo to BMS by Plaintiff.1

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2007 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00100-CRB Document 115 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2