In re Qualcomm Litig.

In re Qualcomm Litig.

Opinion

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE: APPLE'S CLAWBACK OF 34 DOCUMENTS [ECF Nos. 455, 546]

Before the Court are two joint motions for determination of a discovery dispute regarding Apple's efforts to clawback several documents they assert were disclosed in error. Apple maintains that these documents are "classic attorney-client privileged and work product material." (Id. at 18). In the first motion, Qualcomm argues that the documents are not subject to attorney-client or work product protections and request that the eight documents attached to the motion for in camera review, along with an additional twenty-six documents, be ordered produced. (ECF No 455 at 4-5). The second joint motion presents an additional six documents for which Apple has claimed either attorney-client privilege or work product protection.

LEGAL STANDARD

As a [*20]  general matter, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If information is inadvertently produced in discovery that is subject to a claim of privilege or protection, the claiming party may notify the receiving party of the claim and its basis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B). The receiving party "must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information ... must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; ... and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. Id.

DISCUSSION

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.