Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02676/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02676-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

C-04-2676 ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re ATM FEE 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

________________________________/

This Document Relates to 

ALL

ACTIONS_________________________

_______/

No. C 04-2676 CRB (JL)

ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R.

Breyer) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The Court received a

letter from the parties regarding a discovery dispute. The letter was not e-filed in the

Court’s docket.

Discovery Dispute 

Concord claims it inadvertently produced to Plaintiffs three documents (six

documents which are actually two copies of each of three documents) which are subject to

the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs dispute this contention. There is a stipulated

protective order in place in this case, which provides that an inadvertent production of

documents does not waive any privilege. Concord is prepared to offer sworn declarations

from the attorneys involved that the documents contain legal advice and are properly

Case 3:04-cv-02676-CRB Document 323 Filed 07/24/06 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

C-04-2676 ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Page 2 of 2

protected by attorney-client privilege. Concord will agree to in camera review and will

provide declarations prior to or concurrent with such review.

The first document is a 1999 memo from Baker & Mckenzie to Star's marketing

advisory group regarding compliance with antitrust laws. Plaintiffs dispute the claim of

privilege on the basis that it is a "compendium of policies and rules," not subject to the

attorney-client privilege. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 2006 WL 991039 at *14

(N.D.Ill.) 

The second document is a January 2001 memo from Star's outside counsel, David

Clanton, of Baker & McKenzie, to Star's senior executives, providing legal advice

concerning the Government's approval of Concord's acquisition of Star. It states on the

front page, with emphasis "Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential." 

The third document contains a single paragraph titled "Offline Legal Meeting."

Defendants contend it contains legal advice provided by Concord's outside antitrust

counsel to guide Star staff in making pricing and routing decisions. See Upjohn, 449 U.S. at

392-393. 

Plaintiffs dispute that the documents contain legal advice, and contend that Concord

has waived privilege by producing the documents multiple times, but are willing to agree to

an in camera review of the documents, to which Defendants do not object.

Order

This Court hereby orders that Defendants forthwith submit the documents at issue to

the Court for in camera review, along with all supporting declarations, and that the joint

statement be e-filed in the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 24, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02676-CRB Document 323 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2