Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TERADATA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

9 v. FOR RELIEF

10 SAP SE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 146, 184, 185, 186 Defendants. 11

12 Currently before me is plaintiff Teradata Corporation’s motion for relief from Magistrate 13 Judge Laporte’s non-dispositive September 9, 2019 “Order Regarding the Parties’ Cross-Motions 14 Related to Certain Audit-Related Documents.” Dkt. No. 173. For the reasons discussed below, I 15 overrule the objection and affirm Judge Laporte’s determination that SAP did not affect an at issue 16 waiver as to the audit-report or findings. I also conclude that, absent more explanation or caselaw 17 support, Teradata is not required to identify every single individual who received or had access to 18 the privileged information.1 19 In her September 9, 2019 Order, Judge Laporte considered whether various materials in 20 Teradata’s possession were SAP’s privileged documents (“audit-related…