Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01022-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

1

 In its first order addressing this motion, the Court noted that Advante was seeking

substantive relief beyond the scope of Local Civil Rule 7-11 (“Motion for Administrative Relief”). 

Under the circumstances, however, the motion was deemed to have been brought pursuant to Rules

6-3 and 7-1.

2

 The original CDs have now been returned to Advante by prior order. If a waiver of

privilege resulted from the May 1, 2007 production, Advante would be ordered to re-produce the

documents at issue.

1

*E-FILED 7/2/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADVANTE INTERNATIONAL CORP. et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MINTEL LEARNING TECHNOLOGY, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-01022 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING

“ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION”

RE INADVERTENTLY

PRODUCED MATERIALS AND

DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SURREPLY 

Presently set for hearing on July 11, 2007 is Advante’s “administrative motion” seeking the

return of three CDs it produced on May 1, 2007, on grounds that the CDs inadvertently included 

attorney-client privileged documents.1

 The Court finds the matter for suitable for disposition

without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b). 

The sole issue presented by the motion is whether or not the circumstances of Advante’s

production of the CDs constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege as to any of their contents.2

 

Advante has filed declarations describing how the error occurred and establishing that it was

inadvertent. Mintel’s opposition offers no substantial argument that Advante should or could be

Case 5:05-cv-01022-JW Document 539 Filed 07/02/07 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

found to have waived attorney-client privilege as a result of the circumstances of the production of

the CDs on May 1, 2007. Instead, Mintel primarily argues it should be permitted to obtain certain of

the withheld documents, or perhaps all of them, under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client

privilege. Mintel also raises various complaints about Advante’s prior document productions. None

of those matters is properly before the Court in this motion.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, the motion is granted. The Court finds that the

production of materials on the three CDs as to which a claim of privilege is made was inadvertent

and did not constitute a waiver. None of the documents on those CDs that has not subsequently

been re-produced shall be used during any deposition or trial. Mintel’s counsel shall promptly

confirm in writing that any analyses, memoranda, or notes that were internally generated based upon

such inadvertently produced information have been deleted or destroyed.

The Court previously advised Mintel that it should be prepared to address at the hearing its

apparent violation of the Court’s May 15, 2007 order forbidding any accessing of the original CDs. 

Advante also argues that Mintel’s conduct prior to that order violated the terms of the protective

order herein. Although those matters arguably are within the scope of the pending motion, Advante

has not sought any particular relief relating to the apparent violations beyond what it has already

been granted. The Court declines to take further action at the present juncture, but reserves the right

to do so in the future.

Mintel’s administrative motion filed on June 29, 2007, seeking leave to file a surreply and

other relief is denied. As noted above, the Court has not reached or decided Mintel’s claims that it

is entitled to documents by virtue of the crime-fraud exception or its other complaints regarding

document production.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01022-JW Document 539 Filed 07/02/07 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Christopher Banys banysc@howrey.com, melendyk@howrey.com

Brian Wesley Carver bcarver@fenwick.com, rlopez@fenwick.com

Chien-Ju Alice Chuang achuang@fenwick.com, dyoungman@fenwick.com

Rodger R. Cole rcole@fenwick.com, vpieretti@fenwick.com

Songmee L. Connolly SConnolly@Fenwick.com, lrubinstein@fenwick.com

J. James Li lij@howrey.com, schwabs@howrey.com, sflitigationdocketing@howrey.com,

wangm@howrey.com

Ryan Jared Marton rmarton@fenwick.com

Anne Miki Ortel ortela@howrey.com, melendyk@howrey.com

Marilee Chan Wang wangm@howrey.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 7/2/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-01022-JW Document 539 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 3