Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEILSTEIN-INSTITUT ZUR FÖRDERUNG

DER CHEMISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MDL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-05368 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute in this matter. Plaintiffs, Beilstein-Institut zur

Förderund der Chemischen Wissenschaften and Beilstein GmbH (collectively, “Beilstein”), seek to

compel the production of 138 documents that defendant claims were inadvertently produced during

discovery. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion.

DISCUSSION

In the course of producing approximately 800,000 pages of documents in this matter, defendant

realized that it had produced 138 documents, consisting of 522 total pages, that were privileged. Upon

defendant’s request, plaintiffs returned the documents. Plaintiffs requested, however, that defendant

immediately provide a privilege log for the 138 documents that were inadvertently produced. After

defendant provided a privilege log, plaintiffs moved to compel the production of the documents, arguing

that defendant had waived the privilege in two ways. First, plaintiffs claimed that defendant did not

“inadvertently produce” the documents because it failed “to pursue all reasonable means of preserving

the confidentiality of the privileged matter.” U.S. ex rel Bagley v. TRW, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 170, 178 n.11

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 167 Filed 09/06/06 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

(C.D. Cal. 2001). Second, plaintiffs claimed that defendant had waived the privilege by producing an

inadequate privilege log. See Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214 F.R.D. 587, 590 (S.D. Cal. 2003). The

Court cannot agree that either provides a valid basis for finding the privilege waived.

Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant did not “inadvertently produce” the documents is premised

on the doctrine of “inadvertent disclosure” developed in the courts. Here, however, a protective order

governs the parties’ discovery obligations. That order provides that the inadvertent production of

privileged documents does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. Indeed, the order explicitly states

that the receiving party may not bring a motion to compel based on “a waiver caused by the inadvertent

production.” Protective Order Re: Confidential Information (Docket No. 34), at ¶ 11(b).

Plaintiffs argue that the protective order was intended to incorporate caselaw on inadvertent

disclosure, and that the Court should therefore examine whether defendant complied with the legal

standards set out in that caselaw. The Court cannot agree. Plaintiffs’ argument would render a portion

of the protective order entirely superfluous; under the protective order, a production of privileged

documents would result in waiver to the same extent it would if there were no protective order. This

cannot be the result the parties intended. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant did not waive the

privilege by producing the documents.

Plaintiffs also argue that defendant has waived any privilege by producing an inadequate

privilege log. While, in some ways, the log defendant produced is inadequate – it does not, for example,

identify attorneys, state that communications contain legal advice, or identify how the privilege covers

materials that were shared with third parties – the Court cannot agree that defendant has waived the

privilege. The parties in this case agreed to exchange final privilege logs once their productions were

complete. The Court will not find the privilege waived based upon the temporary privilege log

defendant produced, which is 23 pages long and was produced on only ten days’ notice. Rather,

plaintiffs must bring their motion based on defendant’s final privilege log. If they choose to do so, they

should not challenge the withheld documents in a blanket manner, but should be sure to address the

specific documents for which they believes the assertion of privilege is unjustified.

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 167 Filed 09/06/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s

motion to compel (Docket No. 157).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 167 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 3