Corporate Counsel has this article updating the train wreck that we posted about back in June 2004, i.e., the excruciating scenario still playing out in Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor.  As we stated back in June,

The case stems from the following lawyer-nightmare scenario, which I think blows right by the Seventh Circle of Document Review Hell in terms of sheer lawyer anguish: Three Marvell employees--Marvell's general counsel; its VP of engineering, and in-house patent attorney--gathered to call a person at Jasmine, a company with which Marvell was negotiating to purchase some technology. Using a speakerphone, the three left a message on the Jasmine employee's voicemail. However, after leaving the initial message, they failed to hang up the speakerphone, and proceeded to have a conversation that also was recorded on the voicemail.

To put the inadvertently left message in context, Marvell and Jasmine had entered into a nondisclosure agreement that protected the secrecy of Jasmine's trade secrets and employee information. To that end, Marvell was given an opportunity to look at the trade secret information, but not to remove it. Patent disclosures, among the most important of Jasmine's intellectual property, could be reviewed but not copied. Enough was to be shown Marvell to demonstrate the value without disclosing the secret. As summarized by the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District), the contents of the inadvertent voicemail "demonstrate[d] the theft of Jasmine's trade secret, the potential consequences and the planned cover up." 

Ouch. 

According to the article, the California Supreme Court has now agreed to review the case, and Marvell and Jasmine are currently preparing their briefs.  The key legal issue appears to be that the lower appeals court held that because the general counsel also held the title of vice president and was an officer of the company, the fact that Marvell did not intend to waive the privilege through the inadvertent disclosure was immaterial.  Groups like the Association of Corporate Counsel are concerned (and have submitted this amicus curiae letter), and argue that the opinion, "if left standing, means that an in-house lawyer who is providing legal services, but who does so with a corporate title (such as 'vice president') attached to his business card, can inadvertently waive the privilege, contrary to the rule for all other attorneys."