Work-Product Protection Not Available for Common Interest Agreement Between Apple and Samsung as Third-Parties

The court granted defendant’s motion to compel the production of a “Common Interest Agreement” between two third-parties, Apple and Samsung, because the agreement was not protected by the work-product doctrine. “What defeats Samsung’s work-product doctrine argument is that neither it nor Apple are parties in this case. The Ninth Circuit has specifically found that the work-product doctrine does not apply to third parties seeking to shield documents from production. . . . The Court does not reach [defendant’s] burden arguments, or the question of whether the purported Common Interest Agreement is protected by the common interest doctrine, because the common interest doctrine is an exception to the waiver rules of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. . . . But this is likely not the end of this saga, because the reason [defendant] wants the Agreement is so that it can challenge hundreds of Apple’s privilege designations in its privilege log. But that issue is not before the Court now.”

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 5-17-cv-00220 (CAND 2018-03-08, Order) (Nathanael M. Cousins)

2018-03-12T11:58:03+00:00 March 12th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|