Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Award Metals, Inc.
Counter-claimant
United States Gypsum Company
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 PACIFIC AWARD METALS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04941 JSW

ORDER RE MISCELLANEOUS

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST

FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT

TESTIMONY AND FOR ORDER

OF WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant Pacific Award

Metals, Inc.’s (“Award”) miscellaneous administrative request for leave to submit testimony and

for order of waiver of privilege and Plaintiff United States Gypsum Company’s (“USG”)

opposition thereto. This matter is ripe for decision and, pursuant to Northern District Civil

Local Rule 7-11, the Court resolves the matter on the papers.

Local Rule 7-11 sets forth the type of matters that are considered proper subjects of a

motion for administrative relief. Specifically, the rule provides:

during the course of case proceedings a party may require a Court order with

respect to miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a

federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the assigned judge. 

These motions would include matters such as motions to exceed otherwise

applicable page limitations or motions to file documents under seal, for

example.

In its motion, Award asks for leave to submit privileged testimony in support of its

opposition to USG”s motion for summary judgment. Award seeks to use the testimony in

question to support its false marking claim and to show that, contrary to USG’s assertions, it

does have evidence that USG intended to deceive the public when it marked certain products as

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 205 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

covered by the ‘198 Patent, and argues that USG’s statements that Award has “no evidence” in

support this position waived any privilege related to the conversation. USG counters that its

statements in its motion for summary judgment are insufficient to create a waiver of attorney

client privilege. 

The Court finds that this is not the type of request that should be made by way of a

motion for administrative relief, and DENIES this aspect of the request on that basis. If the

parties are able to resolve this matter in advance of the hearing on the motion for summary

judgment, the Court will consider approving a stipulation setting forth the parties’ agreement. 

Award also asks for an order requiring in camera review of documents that it has

requested from USG, but which USG contends are privileged. Award contends that the crimefraud exception applies to these documents and that they should be produced to the Court. The

Court construes this request as a discovery dispute. Accordingly, this aspect of Award’s motion

for administrative relief also is DENIED. However, the Court’s ruling on this aspect of

Award’s motion is made without prejudice to raising the issue before Magistrate Judge James. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 205 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2