Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03127/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03127-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REVOLUTIONARY SOFTWARE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECLIPSYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-3127 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

On May 29, 2007, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Based on the briefs and arguments presented, 1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to compel further production of

communications between Plaintiff and its counsel is DENIED. 

The court agrees that Plaintiff waived the attorney-client privilege as to the documents that it

actually produced to Defendant. The California Evidence Code provides that the attorney-client

privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the

privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented

to disclosure made by anyone.” See CAL.EVID.CODE § 912(a). California courts have noted that

waiver can result from “conduct that is inconsistent with claiming the privilege.” See, e.g.,

Case 5:05-cv-03127-JW Document 104 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1239 (2004).

Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff ever sought return of the two privileged documents. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has allowed those documents to remain in this court’s public file without ever

seeking to have them placed under seal or otherwise protect them from public disclosure. Thus,

regardless of whether there was a waiver of privilege before this motion was filed, Plaintiff’s

conduct since the filing of this motion is inconsistent with a claim of privilege, and is thus sufficient

to constitute a waiver of the privilege.

However, under California law (which governs this diversity action), the scope of a waiver of

privilege is narrowly defined and the information required to be disclosed must fit strictly within the

confines of the waiver. See Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.3d 1047

(1987). Here, Plaintiff disclosed advice from Plaintiff’s counsel to Plaintiff containing no more than

a recommendation that Plaintiff wait before filing suit or initiating an audit. Defendant has not

shown that the nature of this disclosure inherently warrants a finding that Plaintiff has waived the

privilege as to all communications between Plaintiff and attorney Kohler regarding the history and

intent of the Software License Agreement, and the parties’ disputes over royalty reports and the

alleged escrow deposit violation. Nor has Defendant shown that Plaintiff has used the information

as a “sword” in such a way that it would be inequitable at this time to shield from disclosure other

attorney-client communications. Under all the circumstances of this case, and the mandates of

California law, the court finds that the scope of Plaintiff’s waiver of privilege is limited to the

specific documents Plaintiff already produced to Defendant.

Dated: 5/30/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03127-JW Document 104 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2