241 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California

Sep 12, 2002

241 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

Summary

holding that party asserting work product doctrine bears burden of establishing that the privilege applies

Summary of this case from Rafferty v. Keypoint Gov't Sols., Inc.

See 23 Summaries

Opinion

No. C 01-4243 MMC (WDB)

September 12, 2002

Jay Weill, San Francisco, CA, for Petitoners.

Anthony de Alcuaz, McDermott Will Emery, Palo Alto, CA, Michael F. Kelleher, McDermott Will Emery, Washington, DC, Peter Van Mieghem, McDermott Will Emery, Palo Alto, CA, for Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docket Nos. 34, 38 and 54)

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, United States District Judge

Before the Court are petitioners' and respondent's respective objections to and motions for de nova determination of Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil's March 25, 2002 Report and Recommendation Re In Camera Review and petitioners' objections to and motion for de novo review of Magistrate Judge Brazil's June 18, 2002 Report and Recommendation Re Supplemental Submissions.

Having read and considered the above-referenced reports and recommendations and the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the objections and motions, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 6, 2002, and, with one exception, hereby adopts in their entirety Magistrate Judge Brazil's findings and recommendations as set forth in the initial report of March 25, 2002, as supplemented and amended by the report of June 18, 2002.

Magistrate Judge Brazil found document 32 is protected by the work product doctrine. (See Report filed March 25, 2002 at 26,) Respondent concedes that document 32 is not protected by the work product doctrine. (See Response to Petitioners' Objections to Report and Recommendation filed April 22, 2002 at 8:5-6.) Accordingly, the Court finds document 32 is not protected by the work product doctrine.

This order closes Docket Nos. 34, 38 and 54.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California

Sep 12, 2002

241 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

holding that party asserting work product doctrine bears burden of establishing that the privilege applies

Summary of this case from Rafferty v. Keypoint Gov't Sols., Inc.

finding defendant improperly claimed attorney-client privilege for e-mail correspondence where it failed to identify a third-party recipient on its privilege log.

Summary of this case from Greer v. Cnty. of San Diego

finding that "[t]he mere fact" that counsel is copied on an email "will not shield" communications that are not privileged

Summary of this case from Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf

finding that attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications reflecting information used to implement a transaction and not legal advice

Summary of this case from United States v. Microsoft Corp.

finding privilege waived where PwC assisted Chevron attorneys to evaluate the legal merits of a transaction but did not serve in a "'translator' function"

Summary of this case from United States ex rel. Calilung v. Ormat Indus., Ltd.

finding anticipation of litigation where taxpayer "reasonably believed that it was a virtual certainty that the IRS would challenge the . . . transaction" because the company's tax returns were routinely examined by the IRS, the company was engaged in a transaction involving a "substantial amount of tax dollars" and the IRS "had previously questioned similar transactions."

Summary of this case from United States v. Sanmina Corporation and Subsidiaries

adopting report and recommendation of Brazil, M.J.

Summary of this case from Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

adopting " because of" test and accepting party's " general assertion, supported by competent declarations, that the proffered anticipation of litigation was real"

Summary of this case from U.S. Inspection Services, Inc. v. NL Engineered Solutions, LLC

stating the attorney-client privilege attaches to communications between nonlawyer employees where "the employees discuss or transmit legal advice given by counsel"

Summary of this case from Rueter v. Dep't of Commerce

In ChevronTexaco, 241 F.Supp.2d at 1082, as here, the company's tax returns were routinely examined by the IRS, the company was engaged in a transaction involving "a very substantial amount of tax dollars," and the IRS "had previously questioned similar transactions."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Roxworthy

noting that a party fails to carry its burden of demonstrating privilege where the document "does not contain or reveal a communication between attorney and client"

Summary of this case from Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf

noting that counsel provided legal advice, assisted with implementation, and addressed legal issues that arose during implementation

Summary of this case from United States v. Microsoft Corp.

treating FATP privilege congruently with the attorney-client privilege

Summary of this case from United States v. Microsoft Corp.

noting that the attorney-client privilege "might protect a communication between nonlegal employees in which the employees discuss or transmit legal advice given by counsel" or protect a communication "in which an employee discusses her intent to seek legal advice about a particular issue"

Summary of this case from Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress

stating that privilege does not attach where accountant is hired, not as "translator," but to give legal advice about tax code, even if advice assists attorney

Summary of this case from UPMC v. CBIZ, Inc.

withholding work-product protection from any document "'that would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation.'" (quoting United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1202 (2d Cir. 1998))

Summary of this case from Sun v. Ikea U.S. W., Inc.

In Chevron Texaco, the court explained that when communications for which the privilege has been asserted involve in-house counsel, the entity asserting the privilege "must make a clear showing that the speaker made the communications for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice."

Summary of this case from Schaeffer v. Gregory Village Partners, L.P.

acknowledging that communications between nonlegal employees wherein they transmit legal advice given by counsel are protected as privileged communications, as are communications between such employees wherein they discuss an intent to seek legal advice

Summary of this case from Robinson v. County of San Joaquin

In Chevron, the IRS petitioned the District Court to compel ChevronTexaco Corporation ("Chevron") to produce 180 documents Chevron claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or by the work-product doctrine.

Summary of this case from Hellmann-Blumberg v. Univ. of the Pac.

discussing burden of proof

Summary of this case from Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Data Corporation

acknowledging an in camera review of documents for which the defendant claimed attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protection

Summary of this case from Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp.

stating that " Kovel did not intend to extend the privilege beyond the situation in which an accountant was interpreting the client's otherwise privileged communications or data in order to enable the attorney to understand those communications or that client data"

Summary of this case from Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp.

stating that when in-house attorneys wear "`two hats,'" questions are raised about who the "`client'" is in any particular communication

Summary of this case from Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp.

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

Summary

Opinion

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docket Nos. 34, 38 and 54)

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

Summary

Opinion

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docket Nos. 34, 38 and 54)

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations