Opinion
CASE NO. 10-CV-4340-PJH (JCS)
10-31-2011
ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP JOEL S. SANDERS, SBN 107234, G. CHARLES NIERLICH, SBN 196611, MATTHEW S. KAHN, SBN 261679, MICHAEL CECCHINI, SBN 237508, Attorneys for MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOEL S. SANDERS, SBN 107234,
G. CHARLES NIERLICH, SBN 196611,
MATTHEW S. KAHN, SBN 261679,
MICHAEL CECCHINI, SBN 237508,
Attorneys for
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
PRIVILEGE LOG
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle") has propounded its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things ("RFPs") to Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively, "Micron");
WHEREAS, Micron has responded to Oracle's RFPs by producing documents and by providing written responses, which included objections to the RFPs to the extent they request the production of documents that are subject to privilege;
WHEREAS, Oracle and Micron have met and conferred regarding the scope of any privilege log that Micron must provide in response to the RFPs, and have reached the following agreement;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Oracle and Micron, by and through their undersigned attorneys, that:
Micron shall provide a privilege log identifying documents responsive to Oracle's First Set of Requests for Production that Micron withholds on the basis of a claim of privilege; provided, however, that Micron shall be permitted to maintain its assertion of privilege and shall not be required to log any documents that meet all of the following criteria:
(1) the document must have been created or prepared on or after June 11, 2002;
(2) the document must have been either:
(a) created or prepared by (i) Micron's outside litigation counsel, or any employee(s) of such outside litigation counsel working at the direction of counsel; (ii) the inside counsel or outside counsel of any DRAM manufacturer with whom Micron had a joint defense or common interest in connection with litigation related to allegations of collusion among DRAM manufacturers (including but not limited to Elpida, Hynix, Infineon, Micron, Mitsubishi, Mosel Vitelic, Nanya, NEC, Qimonda, Samsung, Toshiba, Winbond, and any predecessor or successor thereto), or any employee(s) of such counsel working at the direction of counsel; or (iii) any consulting expert, testifying expert witness, jury consultant, or other representative, as the term "representative" is used in Rule 26(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, retained by counsel described in subsections (i) or (ii) of this paragraph, or any employee(s) of such representative working at the direction of counsel; or
(b) a communication (i) between or among Micron's inside counsel and/or any Micron employee(s) working at the direction of Micron's inside counsel, provided that a communication will only qualify under category (i) if it (A) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or (B) was related to any document described in paragraph (a); (ii) between Micron's inside counsel or any Micron employee(s) working at the direction of Micron's inside counsel, on the one hand, and any person described in paragraph (a), on the other hand; or (iii) between Micron's inside counsel or any Micron employee(s) working at the direction of Micron's inside counsel, on the one hand, and any other Micron employee(s), on the other hand, provided that a communication will only qualify under category (iii) if it
(A) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or (B) was related to any document described in paragraph (a); and
(3) the document must not have been provided to any person other than a person described in paragraph (2).
DATED: October 26, 2011
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP ¦CROWELL & MORING LLP ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+----------------------¦ ¦JOEL S. SANDERS ¦JEROME A. MURPHY ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+----------------------¦ ¦By: /s/JoelS. Sanders ¦By: ¦ ¦ ¦/s/ Jerome A. Murphy ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+----------------------¦ ¦Joel S. Sanders ¦Jerome A. Murphy ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+----------------------¦ ¦Attorney for Defendants ¦Attorney for Plaintiff¦ +------------------------------------------------------+----------------------¦ ¦MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR ¦ORACLE AMERICA, INC. ¦ ¦PRODUCTS, INC. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
In accordance with the Northern District of California's General Order No. 45, Section X.(B), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories who are listed above.
Michael Cecchini
[PROPOSED? ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
HON. JOSEPH C. SPERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE