Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

QUALCOMM INC.,

Defendant.

IN RE QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LIT.

Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC)

Case No. 17-md-02773 LHK (NC) 

ORDER ON PROPOSED 

PRIVILEGE RE-REVIEW 

PROTOCOLS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 411, 412 (in -2773)

In response to objections to Qualcomm’s privilege log and concerns raised about 

the withholding of non-privileged documents, on March 16 I ordered Qualcomm to rereview certain log entries, to revise its log, to produce specified documents, and to confer 

with the FTC, class counsel, and Apple as to a protocol for a further review of privileged 

documents. Dkt. No. 385. The trial judge, too, expressed concerns about Qualcomm’s 

document productions at the March 22 case management conference. Qualcomm 

separately has objected to certain of Apple’s privilege assertions and its privilege log.

After conferring as directed, the parties plus Apple presented their competing 

proposals for a re-review protocol on March 27 in Dkt. No. 411. Then on March 28 the 

FTC and class counsel amended their proposal in Dkt. 412. All parties agree there is a 

basis for further re-review. Their difference is in the scope and timing of the process.

I held a hearing on the proposed re-review protocols on March 28 and now address 

the competing proposals. I find there is good cause to compel a further re-review of 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 664 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 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

withheld documents by both Qualcomm and Apple. 

As to Apple documents, all the parties and Apple have agreed to a protocol set forth 

at case number 17-md-2773 LHK Dkt. No. 411 at page 9:5-20. I approve it. 

As to Qualcomm documents, I approve the protocol proposed by the FTC and class 

counsel at Dkt. No. 411-1, with amendment to paragraph 4. The Court will not accept for 

in camera review documents submitted “from time to time” by plaintiffs, as suggested in 

paragraph 4 of the proposed protocol. Rather, Qualcomm, class counsel, and the FTC 

must submit joint status reports on April 16, May 16, June 18, and July 16 as to their 

progress on privilege re-review. In each of those reports, plaintiffs and the FTC may 

request in camera review of up to 50 document families. The report must also certify that 

counsel for the parties have met and conferred in person or by phone in an effort to resolve 

the privilege disputes for any document submitted in camera.

I decline the amendment proposed by FTC and class counsel in Dkt. No. 412, as 

more than is needed to remedy the problems presented.

Finally, I order class counsel by April 4 to file the Apple and Qualcomm re-review 

protocols, as modified by this order, as a proposed order.

Under the protocol, the re-review process should be complete by July 1. The parties 

will confer about the need for re-opening depositions. This order does not contemplate 

changing any other deadlines in the case. In other words, class briefing and expert 

discovery may proceed, even while this re-review protocol proceeds simultaneously.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 664 Filed 03/30/18 Page 2 of 2