8 4 0 N E W P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E , S U I T E 4 0 0
`
`N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0 - 6 3 2 4
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 0 9 9 1
`
`F A C S I M I L E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 5 2 0 0
`
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
`
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`1 8 0 0 A V E N U E O F T H E S T A R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
`
`L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 2 7 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Simeon Papacostas
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`
`August 21, 2014
`
`
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 7 7 - 1 0 1 0
`
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`W E B S I T E : w w w . i r e l l . c o m
`
`W R I T E R ' S D I R E C T
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 9 3 0
`
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`
`a c h a t t e r j e e @ i r e l l . c o m
`
`Re: WesternGeco v. Petroleum Geo-Services et al., No. 13-H-2725 (S.D. Tex.)
`
`Dear Simeon:
`
`I write in response to your August 15, 2014 email concerning Geo’s1 privilege log.
`
`First, Geo confirms that it has conducted a diligent search for documents responsive
`to paragraphs 1A-C of the Court’s June 4, 2014 Order (D.I. 107), and either produced or
`logged all that was found. To the extent additional materials are discovered or were
`inadvertently omitted, Geo will promptly supplement its production or privilege log as
`appropriate.
`
`Second, Geo’s log complies with the law governing the privilege and the common
`interest doctrine. Please explain what you mean by your statement that "[t]here is no
`attorney client relationship between ION and Geo, the communications we have to date
`show a lack of common interest, and Geo’s partial production of communications between
`ION and Geo regarding these purported topics Geo has listed waived any privilege that
`might have otherwise existed." The first clause does not seem relevant to the analysis and
`we see no factual or legal support for the latter two. Please explain the relevance and
`provide support for your statements. We can then meet and confer with you to discuss
`whether and how they impact the documents that Geo has logged.
`
`Geo’s privilege log already provides the author, recipient, and subject matter of the
`communications in sufficient detail for you to understand the basis for the privilege. In
`every instance, at least one ION or Geo attorney was involved in sending or receiving the
`logged communications. If you are seeking more detailed descriptions of the underlying
`communications, that is something we are willing to discuss within reason, so long as you
`
`
`1 As we have in other instances, we may use the term "Geo" merely because Western
`or the Court have done so as a shorthand without legal significance.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2035, pg. 1
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY L AW PARTNERSHIP
`
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`
`
`
`Simeon Papacostas
`August 21, 2014
`Page 2
`
`
`
`agree that providing such additional detail does not itself result in a privilege waiver. In that
`same vein, we are also willing to discuss some means to show or provide you with examples
`from the logged items, but again would require assurance that Western will not use such
`disclosure to argue for a broader privilege waiver. Indeed, Western's letter demonstrates that
`Geo's efforts to cooperate and provide as much information as possible without waiving the
`privilege has merely emboldened Western to unfairly and incorrectly argue that Geo's
`candor in discovery results in a broad privilege waiver. We wish to avoid such improper
`assertions in the future. If you are in possession of any documents that you believe results in
`any privilege waiver of any kind, please immediately identify them and return them to us
`because any such waiver was inadvertent.
`
`Third, the common interest doctrine is a firmly ensconced legal principle that
`protects confidential communications between current or potential litigants who share a
`common legal interest in threatened or active litigation. See, e.g., In re Santa Fe Int'l Corp.,
`272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001). Western has at various times asserted or threatened to assert
`the same patents against both ION and Geo, indiscriminately referencing various Geo
`companies and alleging infringement based upon the sale or purchase of the same DigiFIN
`equipment. Western’s litigiousness on the subject of DigiFIN gives rise to a common legal
`interest regarding the patent infringement assertions based on DigiFIN.
`
`Finally, you have asked which "Geo entities" I represent. As you already know, the
`Court has dismissed Petroleum Geo-Services ASA from this litigation for lack of
`jurisdiction and my firm represented that company in its motion to dismiss. You also know
`that my firm has appeared on behalf of Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. and PGS Geophysical
`AS in this litigation, both of which are entitled to claim privilege over logged
`communications. These companies also share a common interest regarding Western's
`inaccurate and undifferentiated infringement claims against various Geo companies based
`on ION's DigiFIN. No Geo company has waived any privilege it may have over any of the
`communications represented in the privilege log.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Arka Chatterjee
`
`Arka Chatterjee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2035, pg. 2
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`