(1) Both OXY and Calpine describe common defence or common interest doctrine as an « extension » of legal privilege. We reject this characterization to the extent that it indicates that there is a broader relationship between lawyer and client, which encompasses all parties and lawyers who share a common interest. (See z.B. United States v. Henke, e.g., 222 F.3d p. 637 [Interpretation of common defence privilege as justification for an attorney-client relationship between one party and counsel representing another party sharing common interests]] On the contrary, under California law, the common interest doctrine is more appropriately defined as a non-waiver doctrine, which is analyzed according to the standard principles of waiver of attorneys` privilege and the doctrine of the work product. (See Raytheon, above, 208 Cal.App.3d on S.