Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. Nos. 13-1987- LPS; 14-109-LPS; 14-846-LPS, July 20, 2016. (Redacted July 26, 2016)

Stark, C. J. After a discovery teleconference held on March 4, 2016, the court resolves privilege disputes for documents reviewed in camera.

The parties submitted documents from the opposing party’s privilege log for in camera review on April 28, 2016. After another review of the approximately 30,000 entries on its privilege log, defendant produced nearly 300 previously-withheld documents. Plaintiff selected 10 documents still withheld as privileged for review by the court. Defendant withdrew the claim of privilege with respect to two on the list and produced additional documents. The court finds that 4 of the 10 documents submitted are privileged. A draft patent application reflecting edits by a co-inventor may not be withheld because of disclosure to third parties identified on the email. Emails reflecting general subject matters of clients’ representations are not privileged. With respect to the ten document selected for review from plaintiff’s privilege log referencing about 3,000 documents, seven may be withheld as privileged. Documents seeking advice on non-legal matters are not properly withheld as privileged.