Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80272/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80272-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF 

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG 

and BMW BANK GMBH,

Applicants.

Case No. 19-mc-80272-VKD

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

BROADCOM’S PRIVILEGE CLAIMS

Re: Dkt. No. 28

Applicants Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW AG”) and BMW Bank GmbH 

(“BMW Bank”) (collectively “BMW”) and respondents Broadcom Corporation, Broadcom Inc., 

and Broadcom Technologies Inc. (collectively “Broadcom”) ask the Court to resolve a dispute 

concerning Broadcom’s allege failure to adequately assert privileges or protections that may apply

with respect documents responsive to BMW’s subpoenas issued pursuant to this Court’s order 

authorizing discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Dkt. Nos. 11, 28.

For the reasons explained below, the Court denies BMW’s request that the Court find 

Broadcom has waived privilege as to any particular document or category of documents, and 

orders further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In response to several of BMW’s document requests, Broadcom asserted an objection that 

the request seeks privileged material. Dkt. No. 28-2 (Responses to Requests Nos. 1-18, 20-21). 

The parties report that during the course of their discussions, they agreed that Broadcom need not 

search for documents of “privileged custodians” or in “privileged repositories” and, therefore, 

those materials need not be identified in a privilege log. See Dkt. No. 28 at 7, 11-12.

On March 19, 2020, Broadcom apparently served BMW with a privilege log containing a 

Case 5:19-mc-80272-WHO Document 32 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 6
2

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

single entry relating to patent prosecution. Id. at 3, 7 n.1. According to BMW, even considering 

the parties’ agreement excluding privileged custodians and repositories from the search, 

Broadcom’s claim to have located only a single privileged document suggests either that 

Broadcom has not conducted a diligent search for responsive documents or that it has failed to 

preserve its privilege claims. Id. at 1, 7. In particular, BMW argues that Request No. 14 should 

have resulted in a production of non-privileged, responsive documents from Broadcom’s CEO, 

Hock Tan, or a number of entries on Broadcom’s privilege log. Id. at 4-5.

Broadcom responds that it timely objected to Request No. 14 as seeking documents that 

are not relevant to a claim or defense, and that it has no obligation to log privileged documents 

that are not discoverable in the first instance. Id. at 8-10. Broadcom also contends that BMW’s 

challenge to Broadcom’s relevance objections are untimely for failure to comply with this Court’s 

Standing Order. Id. at 10.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery in this matter is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1782(a); In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s Office, Tokyo, Japan, 16 

F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 1994) (unless district court orders otherwise, discovery must be obtained 

in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 

633 F.3d 591, 594, 597 (7th Cir. 2011) (applicant may obtain discovery as if matter had been 

brought in domestic court).

A party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of case, considering the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A responding party bears the burden of establishing that responsive documents 

withheld from production are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work 

product protection, or other applicable privilege. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607-08 

(9th Cir. 2009) (citing eight-part test under federal common law for assertions of attorney-client 

Case 5:19-mc-80272-WHO Document 32 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

privilege). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Relevance

As noted above, Broadcom contends that BMW waived its challenge to Broadcom’s 

relevance objection by not timely seeking relief from the Court. It is not clear from the record 

before the Court (and may not have been clear to BMW) whether in the parties’ prior discussions 

Broadcom relied on relevance objections, privilege objections, or both in resisting production of 

documents responsive to Request No. 14 and/or a privilege log. Accordingly, the Court will first 

consider the threshold question of whether BMW’s Request No. 14 seeks documents relevant to a 

claim or defense.

Request No. 14 asks for:

Documents and communications discussing the substance of any 

meetings, correspondence, or communication between Broadcom’s 

CEO, Hock Tan, and BMW’s senior vice president Dr. Christoph 

Grote, including any internal communications, notes, preparatory 

notes, follow-up notes, presentations, meeting minutes, proposals, 

documents, or other materials prepared by Broadcom or Avago in 

relation to any meetings, telephone calls correspondence, or 

communication with Dr. Grote.

Dkt. No. 28-1 at 6. In its written responses, Broadcom made several objections to this request, 

including relevance and privilege. Specifically, Broadcom objected to the request “on the ground 

that it does not seek information relevant to the claims and defenses in the underlying German 

proceedings, and instead improperly and expressly seeks only its litigation adversary’s privileged 

communications related to ligation strategy and settlement strategy for the sole purpose of gaining 

an advantage in litigation and settlement discussions.” Dkt. No. 28-2 at 20.

In the parties’ joint submission, BMW argues that Request No. 14 seeks documents 

prepared by Mr. Tan or exchanged between him and non-lawyers “discussing the substance of any 

meetings, correspondence, or communication between” Mr. Tan and Dr. Grote. Dkt. No. 28 at 4. 

BMW contends that it is “unbelievable” that neither Mr. Tan nor any of Broadcom’s other nonlawyer custodians analyzed the value, infringement, or validity of the asserted patents in 

connection with Broadcom’s efforts to assert or license its patents in connection with such 

Case 5:19-mc-80272-WHO Document 32 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 6
4

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

meetings or communications. Id. at 7. In response, Broadcom does not directly address whether 

Mr. Tan or other non-lawyer custodians have any responsive documents that (i) discuss the 

substance of any meetings, correspondence, or communication between Mr. Tan and Dr. Grote, 

and (ii) relate to the value, infringement, or validity of the asserted patents. It simply asserts that 

Request No. 14 seeks information that is irrelevant or otherwise not discoverable. Id. at 8-9.

In resolving the parties’ prior discovery dispute concerning BMW’s Requests Nos. 1, 2, 

and 21, the Court concluded that BMW’s requests for licensing or settlement communications and 

documents concerning Broadcom’s alleged abuse of dominant market position were directed to 

matters not presently at issue in the German court proceedings, and the Court denied BMW’s 

motion to compel Broadcom to produce responsive documents regarding those matters. See Dkt. 

No. 29. For the reasons explained in the Court’s prior order, to the extent BMW seeks internal 

communications discussing Broadcom’s valuation of the asserted patents, those documents are not 

relevant to any claim or defense presently at issue in the German court proceedings. However, 

Request No. 14 is not limited to damages-related documents. The request appears to encompass 

internal Broadcom communications and other documents that discuss infringement or validity of 

the asserted patents, and those matters are at issue in the German court proceedings.

Broadcom seems to argue that such documents are not relevant because they concern “a 

mid-litigation settlement meeting with BMW,” but it offers no explanation for why this context 

renders the documents undiscoverable. While the Court has rejected BMW’s efforts to compel 

discovery of Broadcom’s licensing or settlement communications with others, see Dkt. No. 29,

Request No. 14 purportedly is directed to materials that concern Broadcom’s infringement claims 

against BMW and the validity of the asserted patents. Broadcom does not rely on Federal Rule of 

Evidence 408 to oppose this discovery, and it cites no authority for the proposition that internal 

communications that happen to occur in the context of settlement discussions with an adversary or 

refer to those discussions are categorically irrelevant and undiscoverable for that reason.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Request No. 14 seeks documents that are relevant to 

a claim or defense to the extent they concern BMW’s infringement or the validity of the asserted 

patents. Broadcom must produce any such responsive documents, unless it contends a privilege or 

Case 5:19-mc-80272-WHO Document 32 Filed 04/14/20 Page 4 of 6
5

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

protection applies.

B. Privileges and Protections

Broadcom also argues that any responsive documents are not the proper subject of 

discovery because they seek “privileged communications related to [its] ligation strategy and 

settlement strategy.” If that is so, Broadcom has an obligation to assert its privilege claims by 

logging otherwise discoverable documents in a privilege log, consistent with the parties’ 

agreement regarding which custodians’ files must be searched and logged. BMW says that it 

expects that documents responsive to Request No. 14 may be found in Mr. Tan’s files and in the 

files of other non-lawyer custodians. Broadcom does not deny that it has provided no privilege 

log for responsive documents in the possession of these custodians.

The parties are correct that a waiver of privilege does not follow automatically from a 

failure to timely and properly assert a privilege claim, and that the Court must consider a party’s 

failure to timely and properly object in the context of a “holistic reasonableness analysis.” 

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s finding of waiver of attorney-client privilege where privilege 

log was provided five months after Rule 34 response deadline and lacked sufficient support). It is 

not clear from the record before the Court whether Broadcom did not list any documents 

responsive to Request No. 14 on a privilege log because it believed (incorrectly) that Request No. 

14 sought only irrelevant information, or whether it did not list any documents because none 

turned up in its search of the files of Mr. Tan and other non-lawyer custodians. In these 

circumstances, the Court declines to find waiver as to any unlogged, but responsive documents at 

this time. 

However, Broadcom must supplement its privilege log in view of the Court’s analysis 

above. Specifically, with respect to Request No. 14, Broadcom must identify any responsive 

documents that (i) discuss the substance of any meetings, correspondence, or communication 

between Mr. Tan and Dr. Grote, and (ii) relate to Broadcom’s infringement or the validity of the 

asserted patents, and as to which Broadcom asserts a claim of privilege or protection. Broadcom 

must describe any such documents in a manner that will enable BMW and the Court to assess the 

Case 5:19-mc-80272-WHO Document 32 Filed 04/14/20 Page 5 of 6
6

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

privilege or protection claimed. Burlington, 408 F.3d at 1148 (explaining that a party claiming 

privilege must “provide sufficient information to enable other parties to evaluate the applicability 

of the claimed privilege or protection.”). If Broadcom determines that no responsive documents 

exist, it shall so state.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court denies BMW’s request that the Court find 

Broadcom has waived privilege as to any particular document or category of documents. The 

Court orders Broadcom to collect and produce any non-privileged documents responsive to 

BMW’s Request No. 14, consistent with the Court’s direction above regarding relevance and 

consistent with the parties’ prior agreement regarding the custodians and repositories to be 

searched, by April 28, 2020. Broadcom shall provide a privilege log to BMW identifying any 

responsive documents for which it claims a privilege or other protection applies, consistent with 

the Court’s direction above regarding privileges and protections, by April 28, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-mc-80272-WHO Document 32 Filed 04/14/20 Page 6 of 6