Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03709/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03709-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: 

NON-WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Paul H. Dawes (Bar No. 55191) 

 John C. Tang (Bar No. 212371) 

 Michele D. Johnson (Bar No. 198298) 

 Kalama Lui-Kwan (Bar No. 242121) 

 Peter T. Snow (Bar No. 222117) 

140 Scott Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 328-4600 

Facsimile: (650) 463-2600

Counsel For CV Therapeutics, Inc. and 

the Individual Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re CV THERAPEUTICS, INC. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: All Actions 

Master File No. C-03-3709-SI (EMC) 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RE: NON-WAIVER OF ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE 

WHEREAS, ProEd Communications, Inc. (“ProEd”) is a healthcare communications 

company that defendant CV Therapeutics, Inc. (“CVT”) retained in June 2003 to provide 

consulting services in preparation for CVT’s presentation regarding Ranexa to the FDA’s 

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; 

WHEREAS, these consulting services involved many hours of teleconferences, working 

sessions, and rehearsals of CVT’s presentation to the Advisory Committee, in which various 

combinations of CVT executives, consultants, and inside and outside counsel participated; 

WHEREAS, ProEd recorded portions of these working sessions and rehearsals of CVT’s 

presentation to the Advisory Committee on audio and video tapes (the “Audio-Visual Records”); 

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2006, Plaintiff served a non-party subpoena on ProEd that 

requested, among other things, the Audio-Visual Records; 

WHEREAS, by agreement of the parties, ProEd transferred the Audio-Visual Records to 

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 416 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 417 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: 

NON-WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

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 

CVT’s counsel to review for confidentiality and attorney-client privilege; 

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2006, Defendants moved for a protective order to prohibit 

discovery of the Audio-Visual Records in their entirety on grounds that they were protected by 

the attorney-client privilege; 

WHEREAS, on July 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for a 

protective order; 

WHEREAS, on August 31, 2006, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for a protective 

order of the Audio-Visual Records in their entirety; 

WHEREAS, to expedite Defendants’ production of the Audio-Visual Records, the parties 

have agreed that the act of Defendants’ production of the Audio-Visual Records without review 

shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privilege as 

to any portion of the Audio-Visual Records; 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, and request the Court to order, that the act of 

Defendants’ production of the Audio-Visual Records without review, shall not be deemed a 

waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privilege as to any portion of the 

Audio-Visual Records; 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: September 7, 2006 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 

 /S/ 

Jeffrey D. Friedman 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

100 Pine Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

T: 415/288-4545 

F: 415/288-4534 

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 416 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 417 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: 

NON-WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

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 

Dated: September 7, 2006 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 /S/ 

Peter T. Snow 

Counsel for Defendants 

140 Scott Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

T: 650/328-4600 

F: 650/463-2600 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest 

under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from 

Jeffrey D. Friedman. 

* * * 

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of counsel, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ 

The Honorable Edward M. Chen 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 SV\510637.1 

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 416 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 3

September 11, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 417 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 3