Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00686/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00686-71/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 AUGUST 8, 2007

(Docket No. 769)

The parties have filed a joint letter, dated August 8, 2007, regarding yet another discovery

dispute. This dispute concerns Dr. I.Y. Shen, who is JVC’s testifying technical expert. Nidec seeks

documents in Dr. Shen’s possession related to his work in a prior litigation (not involving JVC)

about fluid dynamic spindle motors for hard disk drives, the technology at issue here. Nidec also

seeks deposition testimony on the work that Dr. Shen did in the prior litigation. Having considered

the parties’ joint letter, the Court hereby rules as follows.

I. DISCUSSION

JVC makes three arguments as to why information related to Dr. Shen’s work in the prior

litigation should not be disclosed. 

First, it contends that Dr. Shen’s work in the prior litigation is protected by the work product

privilege. Even if JVC had standing to assert the privilege (and it is not clear that JVC has such

standing), the argument fails on the merits. While the work product privilege can extend to

subsequent litigation, see Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601, 605 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (noting that, in

FTC v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the work product doctrine

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 770 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

applied to a subsequent litigation even though the prior litigation had ended six years earlier), “one

condition of later protection is that the protected materials must have been ‘prepared by or for a

party to the subsequent litigation.’” Id. Here, the third party who retained Dr. Shen in the prior

litigation is not a party to the instant litigation. See In re Subpoena Served on Cal. Public Utilities

Comm’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that the work product privilege is limited to

protecting “one who is a party (or a party’s representative) to the litigation in which discovery is

sought”); San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Spencer, No. C 04-04632 SI, 2006 WL

2734284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2006) (noting that “[a]ny protection that the DA’s Office

enjoyed under the work-product doctrine in [another case] does not necessarily extend to the instant

case” where neither the DA’s Office nor the People of the State of California, whom the DA’s

Office represented, was a party to the instant action); Boyd v. City & County of San Francisco, No.

C-04-5459 MMC (JCS), 2006 WL 1141251, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2006) (concluding that the

work product doctrine did not apply to prosecutorial files maintained by the DA because the DA was

not a party to the instant litigation). While perhaps there may be a debate in the law as to whether

the work product privilege is extinguished with the termination of litigation, there is no dispute that

only the party for whom the product was prepared may assert the privilege in subsequent litigation. 

Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 176, 182 (N.D. Ill. 2006), does not

hold to the contrary.

Second, JVC asserts that the information related to Dr. Shen’s work in the prior litigation is

protected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(B). Under the rule, “[a] party may . . .

discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by

another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called

as a witness at trial, only . . . upon a showing of exceptional circumstances . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(4)(B). JVC points out that Dr. Shen was a nontestifying expert in the prior litigation. The

problem with this argument, as highlighted by Nidec, is that the facts known or opinions held by Dr.

Shen which Nidec seeks to discover “were not developed for this lawsuit, and more importantly,

were not developed for the use of [JVC].” Sullivan v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 80 F.R.D. 489, 491 (D.

Mont. 1978) (emphasis added). Rule 26(b)(4)(B) has no application to this litigation.

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 770 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Finally, JVC argues that the information related to Dr. Shen’s work in the prior litigation

cannot be disclosed because he signed a confidentiality agreement with his employer in the prior

litigation. This argument is not compelling since JVC has not cited any authority that the Court

cannot override the confidentiality agreement -- especially if it were to place limits on the disclosure

of the information in this litigation. Nor has it been demonstrated that the confidentiality agreement

signed by Dr. Shen does not contain a typical provision allowing for disclosure where ordered by a

court. 

However, in the interest of justice, the Court shall not order production of documents or a

deposition by Dr. Shen with respect to his work in the prior litigation without first giving IMS

and/or its ultimate client in the prior litigation an opportunity to present an argument as to why the

confidentiality agreement should bar the Court from ordering (1) production of documents in Dr.

Shen’s possession related to the prior litigation and (2) a deposition of Dr. Shen on the subject

matter of his work in the prior litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court defers ruling on Nidec’s motion to compel so that IMS

and/or its client has an opportunity to present an argument as to why the confidentiality agreement

signed by Dr. Shen should prevent disclosure in the instant case. 

JVC shall serve a copy of this order so that it is received by IMS and/or its client no later

than August 20, 2007. Because of this timeframe, service by facsimile or e-mail shall be permitted. 

IMS and/or the client shall thereafter have until August 23, 2007, to file and serve a letter brief on

the issue specified above. Absent a contrary showing by IMS and/or its client, the Court intends to

grant Nidec’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 770 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3