Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Teradata Corp. v. Sap Se

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 4, 2019

TERADATA CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SAP SE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF RE: DKT. NOS. 146, 184, 185, 186

          William H. Orrick United States District Judge

         Currently before me is plaintiff Teradata Corporation's motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Laporte's non-dispositive September 9, 2019 “Order Regarding the Parties' Cross-Motions Related to Certain Audit-Related Documents.” Dkt. No. 173. For the reasons discussed below, I overrule the objection and affirm Judge Laporte's determination that SAP did not affect an at issue waiver as to the audit-report or findings. I also conclude that, absent more explanation or caselaw support, Teradata is not required to identify every single individual who received or had access to the privileged information.[1]

         In her September 9, 2019 Order, Judge Laporte considered whether various materials in Teradata's possession were SAP's privileged documents (“audit-related materials”), to determine whether SAP's motion for return and cessation of use of those materials should be granted or whether Teradata's motion for production of additional audit-related materials should be granted. After reviewing the extensive briefing and argument on these matters, Judge Laporte made the following findings and conclusions:

1. U.S. privilege law, not German privilege law, applies;
2. Even if German privilege law applied, Plaintiff Teradata has not shown that a German court would order production of the documents at issue in this dispute;
3. SAP has met its burden of proof as to the privileged nature of the documents or communications in question;
4. SAP took reasonable steps regarding the audit-related documents prior to the disclosure to Der Spiegel to maintain its assertion of privilege;
5. SAP took reasonable steps to maintain its assertion of privilege once it was on sufficient notice of the use of privileged information in this litigation;
6. In litigating this privilege dispute, SAP has not placed the audit report or the audit-related documents at issue such that a finding of subject matter waiver over the documents is appropriate;
7. The crime fraud exception does not apply to the documents withheld by SAP or in the possession of Teradata;
8. SAP's evidentiary submissions and privilege log entries are adequate to make a prima facie showing that the audit-related documents are properly withheld under the attorney-client privilege;
9. SAP is entitled to the relief it seeks regarding return or destruction of audit-related documents over which it claims privilege, as well as the related assurances from Teradata and its counsel; and
10. Good cause exists to grant the parties' Administrative ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.