United States District Court, N.D. California
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 ...