Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02646/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02646-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NANCY LANOVAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:12-cv-02646-RMW (HRL)

SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE IN 

CAMERA REVIEW

By November 30, 2015, defendant shall do the following:

1. Lodge a copy of PRIV_TW011 and PRIV_TW020 with the undersigned’s chambers.

2. In its supplemental briefing, defendant has made assertions about the nature of its 

relationship with various third parties such that, defendant says, the attorney-client privilege 

applies to communications involving those third parties. Defendant shall submit whatever 

declaration(s) from appropriate person(s) are necessary to establish those assertions. See, e.g., 

Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 481, 492 (2000) (“A detailed factual showing is 

necessary to establish the relationship between the client and a third party that is sought to be 

included within the protection of the attorney-client privilege.”).1 To the extent plaintiff feels it is

 

1

This court recognizes that its first interim order indicated that defendant’s supplemental briefing 

was limited to no more than a 5-page supplemental brief. (Dkt. 168). Therefore, in an abundance 

of caution, this court will give defendant an opportunity to support assertions made in that brief.

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 192 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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

truly necessary for resolution of the dispute re privilege issues, she may file a response (no more 

than 5 pages) to defendant’s declaration(s). Any such response shall be filed no later than 

December 3, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 192 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 3
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

5:12-cv-02646-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Ben F. Pierce Gore pgore@prattattorneys.com, cotto@prattattorneys.com, dawn@cfbfirm.com, 

ntmaddux@barrettlawgroup.com, PTaylor@barrettlawgroup.com, rtrazo@prattattorneys.com

Brian K Herrington bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com, bherrington@pacernotice.com

Charles F. Barrett charles@cfbfirm.com, dawn@cfbfirm.com

Claudia Maria Vetesi cvetesi@mofo.com, lsario@mofo.com

J. Price Coleman colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

William Francis Tarantino wtarantino@mofo.com

William Lewis Stern wstern@mofo.com, jhaskins@mofo.com, lisaflores@mofo.com, 

lwongchenko@mofo.com

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 192 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 3