United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 email thatisthesubjectof theinstantmotion. Google softwareengineer Tim Lindholm (LeeDecl. formulate aresponsetoOracle’s infringement claims. AttorneyLeeattended themeeting, asdid (Lee Decl.¶5).Tendayslater,GoogleGeneral Counsel KentWalker convenedameeting to Counsel BenLeemet withOraclelawyerstodi with lawyersforGoogleInc.abouttheallegedinfringement. OnJuly20,2011,GoogleSenior 433). Intheweeksbeforethisactionwasfiled,lawyers forOracleAmerica, Inc.communicated reasons statedbelow,themotion is defendant moves forrelieffrom anon-dispositivepr GOOGLE INC., v. ORACLE AMERICA,INC., Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page1of15 The factsofthisactionhavebeensetforthinprevious orders( In thispatentandcopyrightinfringement Defendant. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT D ENIED INTRODUCTION STATEMENT / . scuss Oracle’spatent-infringement allegations action involvingfeaturesofJavaandAndroid, etrial orderofamagistrate judge.Forthe ¶ 7).Aweeklater,Mr.Lindholm wrotethe MAGISTRATE JUDGE PRETRIAL ORDEROF NON-DISPOSITIVE FOR RELIEFFROM ORDER DENYINGMOTION No. C10-03561WHA see Dkt.Nos.137,230, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 court’s inspection.” for assertingtheattorney-client privilegeas actually wassentreadasfollows: discussion: whatwe’rereallytryingtodo.”Thefulltextofthebodyfinalemail that “Google Confidential.” the earlierdrafts.Theseheadingslabeledemail as“AttorneyWork Product”and draft alsoincludedtwoheadingswithinthebodyofemail whichwerenotpresentinanyof Mr. Lindholm himself. The“Bcc:”fieldwasblank. Attorney Lee.The“Cc:”fieldlistedDanGrove,whowasanotherGoogleengineer,and final versionlistedAndyRubin,whowastheGoogleVicePresidentinchargeofAndroid,and four-minute periodwerestoredbythecomputer he wrotetheemail between11:01and11:05thatmorning. Theninedraftssavedduringthis final version,ninedifferentdraftsweresa Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page2of15 1 Thefinalversionoftheemail andallnine draftswerereviewed The “Subject:”fieldofthefinalversionandalldraftsemail read,“Contextfor The “To:,”“Cc:,”and“Bcc:”fieldsofallth The finalversionoftheemail wassentat11:05a.m. onAugust6,2010.Inadditiontothe In reHorn 1 , 976F.2d1314,1318(9thCir. 1992). to particulardocuments” is“tosubmit them ved automatically byMr.Lindholm’s computer while withoutspecificdirectionfrom Mr.Lindholm. 2 e draftswereblank.The“To:”fieldofthe Thefinalversionoftheemail andthelast in camera . “Theproperprocedure in camera forthe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for suchdesignations(Br. 5;Dkt.No.66at5). ATTORNEYS’ EYESONLY” pursuanttotheprotec Google did,however,designatetheeightdraf drafts didnotcontaintheconfidentiality orprivile its electronicscanningmechanisms “didnotcatchthose draftsbeforeproduction”becausethose final version,however,wereheldbackandliste discovery, Googleproducedthefirsteightdrafts of constructing anylegaladvice. only attorneywhoreceivedtheemail —actuallyreaditorrespondedtoit,much lessuseditin added inthelastminute beforetheemail was sent.ThereisnoevidencethatAttorneyLee—the with theexceptionthatheadings“Attorney The ninesequentialdraftsshowthatMr.Lindholm generallywrotetheemail from toptobottom, Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page3of15 Oracle filedthisinfringement actionsixdays afterMr.Lindholm senttheemail. During -- Tim andDan we’ve missed inourunderstanding oftheoption. for negotiationpurposes,andwhetheryouthinkthere’sanything reasons whyyouhatethisidea,whetherthinkit’sanonstarter should make thechange.What we’relookingforfrom youisthe this context,whichshouldnotbeconfusedwithusthinkingwe It lookstousthatObj-Cprovidesthemost crediblealternativein terms andpriceforJava. forward ourmost crediblealternative,thegoalbeingto getbetter Safra Katzhard.We thinkthereisvalueinthenegotiationtoput That said,AlanEustacesaidthatthethreatofmoving offJavahit under theterms weneed. suck. We conclude thatweneedtonegotiatealicenseforJava and Chrome. We’ve beenoverabunchofthese,andthinktheyall investigate whattechnicalalternativesexisttoJavaforAndroid What we’veactuallybeenaskedtodo(byLarryandSergei)is reaction thatwegot. we didn’tgiveyoualotofcontext,lookingforthevisceral This isashortpre-readforthecallat12:30.InDan’searlieremail Hi Andy, Google Confidential Attorney Work Product ts itproducedas“HIGHLYCONFIDENTIAL— Work Product”and“GoogleConfidential” were d onGoogle’sprivilegelog.Googleexplainsthat 3 ge headingsanddidnotcontainanyaddressees. theemail toOracle.Theninthdraftandthe tive order,whichrequired restraintandcare United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 order isnotchallenged. documentary record,intheAugust26order byMagistrate expedited briefingandahearing. instant motion forrelieffrom Magistrate JudgeRyu’sAugust26order.Thisorderfollowsfull of theLindholm email wereprivileged.Googletimely soughtandreceivedpermission tofilethe Contrary totheorder,Googleassertsthatit (Dkt. No.361at8–9). final versionandallninedraftsoftheLindholm email andtotenderMr.Lindholm fordeposition work productdoctrine.”Basedonthatfinding,sheorderedGoogletoproduceorre-producethe not demonstrated thattheLindholm Email fallswithintheambit ofattorney-client privilegeorthe After briefing,factualsubmissions, andaheari produced draftsforthesame reason. to theattorney-clientprivilegeand/orworkproductdoctrine.”Googlethenclawedbackother notified Oraclethatthereasonemail drafthadbeenclawedbackwasbecauseit“subject “unintentionally producedprivilegedmaterial” andclaweditback.Afewhourslater,Google public disclosureofitscontent.Thefollowingevening,Googleassertedthattheemail draftwas “Protected Material”undertheprotectiveorderandrequestedthatOraclenotmake anyfurther or confidential. Google attorneysaddresseditssubstance.Theydidnotobjecttotheemail draftasprivileged undersigned judge.Partoftheemail draftwasreadintotherecordatlatterhearing,and Daubert undersigned judgedeniedGoogle’srequesttofile a discovery-disputehearingbeforeMagistrateJudgeRyu,and Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page4of15 2 Google’spost-hearingclaims ofconfidentiality and Google’s instantmotion challengesthatorder,whichwasissued onAugust26,2011. The nightafterthosehearings,Googleinformed Oraclethattheemail draftconstituted The partiesproceededtolitigatethematter oftheLindholm email anddrafts.The On July21,2011,Oraclereferencedoneoftheemail draftsattwodifferenthearings— hearingtranscriptand Daubert 2 orderthatreferencedtheemail draft(Dkt.No.255). did ng, MagistrateJudgeRyufoundthat“Googlehas establishthatthefinalversionandallninedrafts Judge Ryu(Dkt.No.361at3). Thataspectofthe 4 motions tosealandredactportionsofthe privilege werechronicled,with referencetothe Daubert hearingbeforethe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Fed. Cir.2005).Thus,Ninth Circuitcaselawcontrolshere. with respecttoquestionsofattorney-client privilege.” the FederalCircuit,among otherauthorities. TheFedera specific findingsonwhichitwasbasedwereclearly erroneousandcontrarytolaw. further theprovisionoflegaladvice”(Dkt.No.361 at the contentofemail indicatesthatLindholm prepareditinanticipationoflitigationorto objections totheorder.Eachcategoryisaddressedinturnbelow. privilege orthework-productdoctrine(Dkt.No.361at7–8).Googleraisessevencategoriesof finding, theorderthenfoundthatemail anditsdraftswerenotprotectedbytheattorney-client obtaining legaladvicefrom alegaladvisorinhiscapacityassuch.”Inlightofthisfactual of demonstrating thattheLindholm Email constitutesacommunication relatedtothepurposeof all theintrinsicandextrinsicevidence,orderfoundthatGooglehadfailed“tomeet itsburden extrinsic evidencebearingonthequestionofprivilege.Then,basedholisticconsideration contrary tolaw.Itwasnot.Theordersetforthadetailedreviewoftheemail itselfandthe reviewed (as opposedtofactualfindings)inanon-dispositivepretrialorderofmagistrate judgeare deciding court.” determination,” and“[t]hereviewingcourtmay notsimply substituteitsjudgment forthatofthe matters, ordersofamagistrate judgeonnon-dispositivematters “arenotsubjectto and CountyofSanFrancisco magistrate must bedeferredtounlessitis‘clearlyerroneousorcontrarylaw.’” erroneous oriscontrarytolaw.”FRCP72(a).Thus,“[a]non-dispositiveorderenteredbya order ofamagistrate judgeandmust “modify orsetasideanypartoftheorderthatisclearly Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page5of15 3 Theparties’briefscitedecisions bytheUnitedStat .C Having consideredthefulltextofemail, 1. Google assertsthatMagistrateJudgeRyu’sAugust26orderwasclearlyerroneousand The districtjudgeinacasemust considertimely objectionstoanynon-dispositivepretrial de novo ONTENT OFTHE Ibid. (ReplyBr.2–3). Googlecitesnobindingauthorityforitsargument thatlegalconclusions , 951F.2d236,241(9thCir.1991).Incontrasttodispositive E 3 MAIL . ANALYSIS Fort JamesCorp.v.SoloCup Co. l Circuit“appliesthelawof regionalcircuit. 5 es CourtsofAppealsfortheNinth Circuitandfor thechallengedorderfoundthat“[n]othingin 5).Googleassertsthatthisfindingandthe , 412F.3d1340,1346 Grimes v.City de novo United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 not automatically conferprivilege. less useditinconstructing anylegaladvice.Again,merely addinganattorneyasarecipientdoes was amere “To.”Therewasnoevidence thatheactuallyreadorrespondedtotheemail, much intent. Thesalutationofthefinalemail addressedonlyanon-attorney.Theattorney,atmost, statement athandmade aseparatepointconcerningthesalutationasevidenceofwriter’s challenged orderacknowledgedelsewherethatAttorney Leewasincludedinthe“To:”field.The the “To:”field(Br.11).Google’scritiquetakes th erroneous becausetheemail was“directedto”A analyzed thesalutationofemail (Dkt.No.361at5).Googlearguesthatitwasclearly President ofAndroid,”andnot“toWalker orLee, Google’s claim ofprivilegewasnotclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolaw. litigation (Dkt.No.361at6).Thefindingthattheseaspectsoftheemail didnotsupport Chrome wasnotmentioned atthemeeting withOracle’slawyersandhasplayednoroleinthis mentioned intheemail included bothaccusedandnon-accusedproducts.TheGoogleproduct not otherwiseforthepurposeoffacilitatinglegaladviceorservices.”).Moreover,technology adding anattorneyasarecipientareinsufficienttoconferprivilegewhenthecommunication is (Corley, M.J.)(“Merelylabelingacommunication asan‘attorney-clientprivilegeddraft’ .or Contract Litigation not automatically conferprivilege. challenged orderconsideredandrejectedallofthosepoints. alternatives tothetechnologythatOraclethenwasclaiming Googlehadinfringed”(Br.11).The assigned tosuperviseLindholm’s investigationoffactsrelatedtoOracle’sclaims, andconcerned ‘Attorney Work Product’and‘GoogleConfidentia anticipation oflitigationandtofurthertheprovisionlegaladvice,becauseitincludeswords Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page6of15 Second Simply labelingadocument asprivilegedandconfidentialorsendingittoalawyerdoes First , Googleassertsthatthecontentofemail “ , thechallengedordernotedthatemail was“directedtoRubin,theVice , No.09-md-2032, 2011WL 3268091,at*4(N.D.Cal.July28,2011) See See, e.g.

In reChaseBank , In reChaseBankUSA,N.A.“CheckLoan” 6 ttorney LeeinthatAttorneywaslisted orindeedtoanylawyer.”Thisstatement l,’ wassenttotheGooglein-houselawyer e “directedto”statement outofcontext.The , 2011WL 3268091,at*4. does indicatethatitwaspreparedin United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 lawyers andwhichhasplayed noroleinthislitigation(Dkt.No.361at6). referenced Chrome, aGoogleproduct thatwasnotmentioned atthemeeting withOracle’s that theemail may haveconcernedadifferentmatter. Forexample, theordernoted thattheemail challenged ordercitedcopiousrecordfacts,including thetextofemail itself,assuggesting supported byanyfactualevidenceandrestsoncounterfactual speculation”(Br.12).Notso.The strategy discussion’aboutlicensingnegotiations ratherthananythinglitigation-relatedisnot They werenot. (Dkt. No.361at6).Googlechallengesthesestatements asclearlyerroneousandcontrarytolaw. strategy discussionintendedtoaddressbusinessnegotiationsregardingaJavalicense” observation inconjunctionwithotherfacts,theorderfoundthat“theEmail appearstobea and Android,theneedtonegotiatealicenseforJava.”Thiswastrue.Afterconsideringthis litigation, Oracle,orpatentinfringement; rath erroneous orcontrarytolaw. prepared itinanticipationof litigationortofurther theprovisionof legaladvice”wasnotclearly the language. affirmatively statedthatthelawyersdidnot research. Thiswastrue.ContrarytoGoogle,theparentheticaldidnotimply thattheemail lawyers parenthetical statement “andnotthelawyers”emphasized that state thatthelawyersdid discussed intheEmail” (Dkt.No.361at5).Googlecomplains thattheemail didnotexpressly (and notthelawyers)instructedLindholm and Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page7of15 First The challengedordernotedthattheemail text“nevermentions legaladvice,lawyers, L 2. The conclusionthat“[n]othinginthecontentofemail indicatesthatLindholm Third asdirectingtheresearch,butratheritidentifiedotherindividuals , Googlearguesthatthe“conclusionLindholm email ‘appearstobea , thechallengedordernotedthatemail “expresslystatesthatPageandBrin N ACK OF ON - LITIGATION R not EFERENCE TO directtheresearch(Br.11).Googlemisreads theorder.The M ATTERS L ITIGATION AND . direct theresearch.Google’sobjectiontortures er, itfocusesontechnologicalaspectsofChrome Grove toundertakethetechnologicalresearch 7 F OCUS ON the emaildidnotidentify United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 or contrarytolaw. that herequestedfrom Lindholm aspartofthe foundation showingthat hecouldcompetently represent thattheemail wasconnectedtowork he receivedit(Dkt.No.408-1).Thefindingthat did notstatethatheeverreadtheemail orthatherecalledthespecificcircumstances underwhich does notciteanyauthorityfora“tooobvious”exception tothisrule.AttorneyLee’sdeclaration describes whatitwasabout”(Br.9). obvious torequirewhenthedeclarantdeclaresthat hereceivedtheemail inquestionand According toGoogle,afoundationalstatement that Mr. Lindholm regardingtheinvestigationMr.Walker andIhadaskedhim toconduct.” Attorney Lee’sdeclarationstated,“OnoraboutAugust6,2010,Ireceivedanemail from he describesinhisdeclaration”(Dkt.No.361at5). was connectedtoworkthatherequestedfrom indicate [inhisdeclaration]thathereviewedtheEmail andcouldcompetently representthatit of suchgaps.Oneexample wasthatAttorneyLee,“whonolongerworksforGoogle,didnot Google failedtofill,despitehavinghadample opportunitytodoso.”Itthencitedthreeexamples that itfocusedonnon-litigationmatters wasclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolaw. conclusion thattheemail wasnotprivileged. of anyreference tolitigationwascitedasonlyoneof many factors contributingtotheultimate mischaracterizes thechallengedorder.Nosuchrequirement wasarticulatedorimplied. Thelack or torequestlegalassistance”(Br.12).Again,notso.Thisinterpretationgrossly communication cannotberelatedtoacorporatelegalinvestigation ifitfailstoreferlitigation Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page8of15 Personal knowledgeisarequiredfoundationfor any factualtestimony. FRE602. Google Google arguesthatthisobservationwasclearlyerroneousandcontrarytolawbecause The challengedorderfoundthat“therearemany basicgapsinthefactualrecordthat .F 3. Neither theobservationthatemail lackedanyreference tolitigationnortheconclusion Second , Googlearguesthatthechallengedorder“held,insubstance,a L IRST EE D ECLARATION E VIDENTIARY S G TATEMENTS AP :

L ACK OF Lindholm as part oftheprovisionlegaladvice provision oflegaladvice wasnotclearlyerroneous 8 AttorneyLee’sdeclarationlackedadequate . AttorneyLeeactuallyreadtheemail “istoo F OUNDATION FOR United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 but thisstatement didnotforeclose thepossibilitythatemail concernedsomething otherthan general businessadvice to anyoneinconnectionwithAndroid’songoing businessoperations,” Mr. Lindholm’s statements. Thecitedparagraphstatedthattheemail wasnotintended“togive possibility thattheemail wasaboutanythingelse”(Br.10).Again,Googlestretches non-privileged matter. challenged ordercitedample recordsupport fortheviewthatemail concernedsome other, communicating aboutsomething else”(Br.9–10).Notso.Asdetailedthroughoutthis order, the Magistrate’s counterfactualspeculationthatMr. Lindholm andMr.Lee‘may wellhavebeen’ email wassent(Dkt.No.408-2). to theparticularinvestigationdescribed,becausetheydonotdescribepurposeforwhich to law.AsMr.Lindholm, thecitedportionsofhisdeclarationdonotspecifically tietheemail foundation. Thisorderalreadyhasfoundthat (Br. 9).AstoAttorneyLee,thechallengedor response toOracle’sinfringement claims andinanticipationofOracle’sthreatenedlawsuit” General CounselKentWalker hadaskedMr.Lindholm toundertake,underLee’sdirection,in Mr. Lindholm’s August6,2010email addressestheinvestigationthatMr.LeeandGoogle three basesforitsobjection. Google arguesthatthisobservationwasclearlyerroneousandcontrarytolaw.identifies factual recordthatGooglefailedtofill”(Dkt.No.361at5): Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page9of15 Third Second First The challengedordercitedthefollowingasasecondexample ofa“basicgap[]inthe S 4. , Googleassertsthat“Mr.LeeandMr.Lindholm expresslydeclaredthat , GoogleassertsthatMr.Lindholm’s reply , Googlearguesthat“[t]hereisnobasisintherecordorelsewherefor THE explanation fortheEmail thatGooglemakes noefforttoforeclose. negotiating foraJavalicense.Thisissimple andreasonable about othernon-privilegedmatters, includingthebusinessof that time, Lindholm may wellhavebeen communicating withLee solely aboutthelegaladvicetheyeachdescribe.Inotherwords,at period inquestion,theywerecommunicating witheachother Neither LeenorLindholm discusseswhether,duringthetime ECOND E MAIL E VIDENTIARY C ONCERNED A G AP D :

IFFERENT F der foundthathisstatements about theemail lacked AILURE TO 9 findingwasnotclearlyerroneousorcontrary ,

N declaration “specificallyexcludedthe ON F ORECLOSE THE -P RIVILEGED M P ATTER OSSIBILITY . T HAT United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 involved inaninvestigationofOracle’sinfringe incorrect. prominently inanemail supposedlysentforthepurposeofobtaininglegaladvice. “gap” identifiedabovereferstoGoogle’sfailureexplainwhytheseindividualsfeaturedso requested byGoogleexecutivesLarryPageandSerg Rubin, whowasnotalawyer.Similarly, itnotedthattheemail reportedonaninvestigation The challengedordernotedthatthesalutationinbodyofemail addressedonlyAndy record thatGooglefailedtofill”(Dkt.No.361at5): general counsel—butnever byboth”(Br.10–11).Theorder,however, containednosuch investigation canbeordered orsupervisedeitherbytopmanagement, orbythecompany’s investigation directedbyMessrs.Pageand infringement claims wasdirectedbyAttorneysLeeandWalker, whereastheemail referred toan On thecontrary,Google’sdeclarationsstated Google engineersforthepurposeofobtaininglegal adviceinpreparationforthislawsuit(Br.10). declaration orotherevidenceshowingthatthey concerned another,non-privilegedmatter wasnotclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolaw. (Dkt. No.408-3at¶7). an investigationforpurposesofobtaininglegaladviceinpreparationthislawsuit Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page10of15 Google assertsthatthisobservationwasclearlyerroneousandcontrarytolaw.is The challengedordercitedthefollowingasathirdexample ofa“basicgap[]inthefactual Second T 5. In sum, thefindingthatGooglefailedtoforeclosereasonablepossibilityemail First , GooglearguesthatMagistrateJudgeRyu“appears tohaveassumed thatalegal OF , GooglearguesthatitislogicalRubin,Page,andBrinwouldhavebeen asserted privilege.” facts intheirdeclarationswithoutjeopardizingthe and Lindholm easilycouldhavesuppliedthesebasicfoundational individuals featuresoprominently inthetextofEmail. Lee formulate legaladvice,nordotheyattempt toexplainwhythese Page, and[Sergei]Brinwereinvolvedinthedescribedeffortsto [N]either LeenorLindholm statesthat[Andy]Rubin,[Larry] HIRD N ON E -L VIDENTIARY AWYERS . G AP :

Brin. Thisdiscrepancywasnotexplained. F AILURE TO that thetechnicalinvestigationofOracle’s 10 were ment claims. Google,however,doesnotciteany ei Brin,whoalsowerenotlawyers.The involvedindirectingtechnicalresearchby E XPLAIN P ROMINENCE United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 this ordersaveandexceptto reinforce thewisdom oftheholdingin experience isaddedforthebenefit oftherecordandfor now-Justice Ginsburgin very oftendonewithoutanyintention thatitbeusedto message inprivilege. Addingthename ofalawyerto internal (andevenexternal)counsel onallmanner of bus considerable experiencewithandexposuretotheprac of Brazil,M.J.). 241 F.Supp.2d1065,1076(N.D.Cal.2002)(Chesney,J.)(adoptingreportandrecommendation 737 F.3d94,99(D.C.Cir.1984). primarily bydistrictcourtsfollowingnow-JusticeGinsburg’sopinionin showing” standard.Ourcourtofappealshasyet The challengedorderciteda2002decisionfrom thisdistrictcourtthatappliedthe“clear “clear showing”standardforin-housecounselhasbeenrejectedbyourcourtofappeals.Notso. communication forthepurposeofobtainingorproviding in-house counseldeservesprivilegedstatusmust make aclearshowing thatthespeakermade the order statedthatapartyattempting todemonstrate thataninternalcommunication involving heightened scrutiny,”becausein-housecounselmay servebothbusinessandlegalfunctions.The and thereforeinanattorney-clientrelationshipwith theiremployer. Thedecisiondidnotaddress conducting aninternalinvestigationattheirow standard forestablishingprivilege.Rather,thecited portionof out ofcontext.The counsel. the existenceofaprivilege,”noattempt ismade todistinguishbetweeninsideandoutside discrepancy describedabove.Thatobservationwa statement andreliedonnosuchlogic.Itmerely observedthatGooglefailedtoaddressthe Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page11of15 4 Inhispriorcareer,theundersignedjudgepracticed Google arguesthatthisreasoningwasclearlyerroneousandcontrarytolawbecausethe The challengedorderstatedthatAttorneyLee’s“roleasin-housecounselwarrants Google citesa1996decisionfrom ourcourtofa R 6. United Statesv.Rowe 4 OLE OF In reSealedCase Rowe A decisiondidnotaddressthe“clearshowing”standardoranyother TTORNEY , 96F.3d1294,1296(9thCir.1996).Googletakesthislanguage makes considerablesense andaddressesreal-worldpractices.This See, e.g. L EE AS , alistofbusinessrecipientsis exceedinglyeasyandis tice ofcompany officersandemployees routinelycopying United Statesv.ChevronTexacoCorporation I frame legaladvice. Forthatreason,theruleadoptedby N any appellatereview.Ithasnot coloredtheoutcome of iness communications asanattempt tocloakabusiness n lawfirm “were,effectively,in-housecounsel” -H 11 to addressthatstandard.Ithasbeenapplied OUSE OUSE in alargecivillitigationfirm for25yearsandhad s notclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolaw. In reSealedCase ppeals, whichstatedthatin“determining C legal OUNSEL advice(Dkt.No.361at7). Rowe . foundthatattorneys . In reSealedCase , , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 erroneous andcontrarytolaw.Googlearguesthat warrants attorney-clientprivilege”(Dkt.No.361at6).Googleobjectstothisstatement as clearly the Lindholm Email incourtreinforcetheweaknessesofGoogle’scontentionthatEmail to law. not explicitlyreferencethissupposedpresumption didnotrenderitclearlyerroneousorcontrary evidence torebutanysuchpresumption inthisinstance.Thefactthatthechallengedorderdid “most oftengivinglegaladvice”(Br.14).Thechallengedorder,however,citedsufficientrecord ‘clear showing’doctrine”—theexistenceofarebuttablepresumption thatin-housecounselare counsel wasnotclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolaw. shown reasonable. Thisobservation wasnotclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolaw. a furtherindicationthat the order’sassessment oftheemail based on privileged document” (Dkt.No.361at6–7).The case, believedthattheEmail concernedbusinessnegotiationsandcouldnotidentifyitasa ‘Work Product’text,evenGoogle’sleadcounsel,w email setforthintheorder:“Inotherwords,whenstrippedofaddressheaderandboilerplate observed thatthereactionsofGoogle’slawyerswere consistentwiththeinterpretationof did notrelyontheirreactionstoshowthatprivile Lindholm email whenconfrontedwithitattheJuly21hearings.Moreover,challengedorder millions ofpagesdocuments havebeenproduced”(Br.14). conspicuous intrinsicindiciaofprivilegeisutterlyirrelevant,especiallyinacasewhereliterally for thefirst time withanincomplete draft of the Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page12of15 standard . .R The challengedorderstatedthat“[t]hereac 7. Google alsoarguesthat“theMagistratefailedtomention animportant corollaryofthe Google citesnoevidencethatitslawyersweresurprisedorunabletoidentifythe Ibid. fordetermining whethertheexistenceofanattorney-clientprivilegehadbeen RequiringaclearshowingofprivilegeinlightAttorneyLee’sroleasin-house EACTIONS OF G OOGLE L ITIGATION adocument that hasbeenstrippedofitsmost 12 ge hadbeenwaivedordidnotapply.Itsimply reaction ofGoogle’slawyerswascitedonlyas the“surprisedreactionofalawyerconfronted tions ofGooglecounselwhenpresentedwith ho isintimately familiar withthefacts ofthis C OUNSEL . other evidencewas United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 v. UnitedStates advice tocorporatedecision-makers.” Accord with low-levelemployees inordertogatherinformation, developlegaladvice,andrelaythat order evisceratetheprinciplethat“[c]orporatecounselneedtobeablecommunicate freely reached bythechallengedorder“guts above. Totheextent replybriefidentifiesnewsupposederrors,those arguments are untimely supposed errorsthatwere setforthinGoogle’sope expressly discusseslitigationorlegaladvice”(Reply explained thatthechallengedorderdidnothold “that acommunication isnotprivilegedunlessit fictions createdbyGoogle’smischaracterization of conflict betweenthechallengedorderand in aparticularcase. addressed thescopeof theattorney-clientprivilege,notstandardfor provingitsapplicability narrow the privileged scenario,whetherofthetypedescribedin Google failedtomeet itsburdenof apply beforeitcanbeinvokedastoaparticulardocument. Thechallengedorderheldthat providing legaladvice.Buttheprivilegeprotectingsuchcommunications must beshownto counsel needtobeablecommunicate freelywithlow-levelemployees forpurposesof Ins. Co.v.U.S.Dist.Ct.fortheofAriz. Upjohn law inanyspecificrespect.Additionally,thech Upjohn Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page13of15 In additiontoGoogle’sspecificobjectionsaddressedabove,Googlearguesthattheresult Google’s replybriefcataloguesanumber ofsupposederrorswhich,initsview,create anditsprogeny,includingthe This orderalreadyfoundthatthechallengedwasnotclearlyerroneousorcontraryto decisiontoMagistrateJudgeRyu. 8. scope U , 449U.S.383,389(1981)”(ReplyBr.3).Google,however,didnotcitethe PJOHN ofscenarioswhich,ifproven,wouldgiverisetoprivilege. AND G OOGLE showing ’ Upjohn. Admiral S R EPLY Upjohn thattheLindholm email wasgeneratedina , 881F.2d1486(9thCir.1989).True,corporate ing toGoogle,“[t]hatisthepremise of ” Googlearguesthatthesupposederrorsin decisioncounselcitedatthehearing. 13 B allenged orderasawholedidnotrunafoulof RIEF . Manyofthosesupposederrorsaresimply ning brief,thoseissuesalready wereaddressed theorder.Forexample, thisorderalready Upjohn Br. 4).Totheextentreplybriefrepeats . orotherwise.Theorderdidnot Upjohn and See Admiral Upjohn Co. Admiral United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 contrary tolaw. protected byattorney-clientprivilegeorwork-productimmunity wasnotclearlyerroneousor by MagistrateJudgeRyufindingthatGooglefailedtoestablishtheLindholm email was discovery materials do reminded, however,thatconfidentialitydesignationsgoverningthelitigants’ treatment of designation (Dkt.No.513). protective order.Googlehasfiledamotion toretainitsmore restrictiveconfidentiality documents asonly“CONFIDENTIAL,”acategoryprovidinglesserprotection underthe order whenitproducedthem toOracle.OraclethenrequestedthatGooglere-designatethe “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’EYES also disputetheconfidentialitystatusofthosedocuments. Googledesignatedthedocuments as motion toretainitsconfidentiality designation isirrelevanttothisdetermination. material. Accordingly, thisorderwillbefiled declaration testimony, thisorderfindsthat the Lindholm email doesnotcontainanytrulysealable (Dkt. No.68). by courtorderinaccordancewiththeNinthCircuit’s strictcautionagainstsealingrecords court. Theorderadoptingthestipulatedprotectivewarnedthatfilings willbesealedonly or contrarytolaw.Accordingly,Google’smotion forrelieffrom theorderis not addressedinthechallengedorder—alsoneedbeaddressed. and neednotbeaddressed.Theparties’argumen Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page14of15 .C 9. This ordermakes nocomment onthemerits ofthat pendingmotion. Thepartiesare In additiontodisputingtheprivilegestatusofLindholm email anddrafts,theparties Having consideredthefulltextofLindholm email quoted hereinandallrelated Google hasfailedtoidentifyanyaspectofthechallengedorderthatwasclearlyerroneous ONFIDENTIALITY not entitlesuchmaterials toautomatic protectionwhenfiled orusedin . * in thepublicdocket.ThependencyofGoogle’s 14 ts concerningwaiverofprivilege—whichwas ONLY”underthestipulatedprotective D ENIED . Theorder United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: coe 0 01 Dated: October20,2011. drafts willnotbetreatedasprotectedbyattorney-clientprivilegeorwork-productimmunity. non-dispositive pretrialorderofMagistrateJudgeRyuis Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document546Filed10/20/11Page15of15 IT ISSOORDERED. For thereasonssetforthabove,defendant’smotion forrelieffrom theAugust26 CONCLUSION 15 U W NITED ILLIAM D ENIED S TATES A LSUP . TheLindholm email and D ISTRICT J UDGE