Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00385/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00385-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Plaintiff
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

Heller 

Ehrman LLP

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 

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE NON-WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE 

CASE NO. C 007-00385 JSW 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: C 07-00385 JSW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

PROTECTIVE ORDER RE NONWAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT 

PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT 

DOCTRINE 

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 93 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 1 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 94 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 5
Heller 

Ehrman LLP

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 

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE NON-WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE 

CASE NO. C 007-00385 JSW 

2

WHEREAS, defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) issued 

Policy No. TE09404801 (the “Policy”) to plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”); 

WHEREAS, this lawsuit concerns, among other things, Adobe’s allegations that St. Paul is 

obligated under the Policy to defend and indemnify Adobe in connection with Claims made and 

asserted by Agfa Monotype Corporation and International Typeface Corporation (collectively, 

“Agfa/ITC”) which resulted in the following underlying proceedings: (1) Agfa Monotype Corp. et. 

al. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 1:02-cv-06320 (N.D. Illinois); (2) International Typeface 

Corp. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 1:02-cv-08256 (N.D. Illinois); (3) Adobe Systems 

Incorporated v. International Typeface Corporation et al., No. 5:02-cv-04176 (N.D. California); 

and (4) arbitration proceedings which commenced in London on or about September 4, 2002 

between Adobe and Agfa/ITC in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Arbitration 

Rules (2000 ed.) (collectively, the Claims and proceedings are referred to as the “Underlying 

Actions”); 

WHEREAS, St. Paul has requested that Adobe produce invoices (the “Invoices”) reflecting 

the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Adobe in connection with the Underlying Actions, and 

Adobe is preparing to produce the Invoices; 

WHEREAS, Adobe believes that the Invoices constitute and/or contain attorney-client 

communications and/or attorney work product, and St. Paul disputes these contentions; 

WHEREAS, in a December 4, 2007 order, the Court ordered Adobe to produce the Invoices 

on a rolling basis, with the final documents produced no later than December 20, 2007, subject to 

entry of a protective order “to protect the production from constituting a waiver of the attorneyclient privilege or a waiver of the attorney work product protection;” 

WHEREAS, Adobe is preparing to produce additional documents generated in connection 

with the Underlying Actions that Adobe believes constitute and/or contain attorney-client 

communications and/or attorney work product (the “Other Underlying Documents”), such as (1) 

correspondence between Adobe and its outside counsel in the Underlying Actions; and (2) other 

documents from the files of Adobe’s in-house and outside counsel in the Underlying Actions. The 

term “Other Underlying Documents” does not include: (a) pleadings from the Underlying Actions; 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 93 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 2 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 94 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 5
Heller 

Ehrman LLP

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 

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE NON-WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE 

CASE NO. C 007-00385 JSW 

3

(b) correspondence exchanged between Adobe and Agfa/ITC in the Underlying Actions; or (c) 

documents produced by Adobe, Agfa/ITC, or third parties in the Underlying Actions; 

WHEREAS, St. Paul may dispute that some or all of the Other Underlying Documents 

constitute and/or contain attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the parties hereto, 

through their respective counsel of record, as follows: 

1. Adobe’s production of Invoices or Other Underlying Documents in this action does 

not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/or the protections of the attorney work 

product doctrine, to the extent such privilege and protections are applicable, whether as to: (a) the 

Invoices or Other Underlying Documents themselves; (b) the subjects referenced in the Invoices or 

Other Underlying Documents; or (c) any other or broader subject matter. St. Paul is prohibited 

from arguing that the fact of Adobe’s production of the Invoices or Other Underlying Documents 

constitutes such a waiver. However, St. Paul has the right to otherwise assert that the Invoices or 

Other Underlying Documents do not constitute and/or contain attorney-client communications 

and/or attorney work product. Subject to this Order and the Court’s December 4, 2007 Order, the 

Court may resolve on a later date all issues of privilege and work product protection as they relate 

to the Invoices and Other Underlying Documents and to their subject matter. 

2. If a party (the “Producing Party”) inadvertently produces a document in discovery 

and later, upon becoming aware of its disclosure, promptly requests its return on the grounds that it 

should have been withheld from disclosure and it is protected from production in this lawsuit by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine, the other party (the “Receiving Party”) 

shall return the document and all copies thereof (whether in the hand of the Receiving Party's 

outside counsel, the Receiving Party's in-house counsel or employees, or third parties, including but 

not limited to document vendors and expert witnesses), and destroy all electronic versions of the 

document, within 5 business days. However, in the event that the Receiving Party disputes the 

Producing Party's claim as to the protected nature of the inadvertently disclosed document, a single 

copy may be sequestered and retained by and under the control of the Receiving Party for the sole 

purpose of seeking prompt court determination of the issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 93 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 3 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 94 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 5
Heller 

Ehrman LLP

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 

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE NON-WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE 

CASE NO. C 007-00385 JSW 

4

Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). The Receiving Party is prohibited from arguing that the fact of the 

Producing Party’s production of the document constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege 

and/or work product doctrine. The provisions of this paragraph apply regardless of the number of 

documents inadvertently produced by a Producing Party. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: December 13, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

By /s/ Raymond H. Sheen

RAYMOND H. SHEEN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED 

DATED: December __, 2007 SEDGWICK DETERT MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

By____________________________________ 

MARK HANCOCK 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE 

 COMPANY 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________ By: _________________________________ 

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

 United States District Court Judge 

 Northern District of California 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 93 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 4 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 94 Filed 12/13/07 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 93 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 5 of 5

December 13, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 94 Filed 12/13/07 Page 5 of 5