James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 200

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2014 193 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RICK JAMES, et al.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 11-1613 SI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED
FEBRUARY 10, 2014

v.
UMG RECORDINGS, INC.
Defendant.

/

14
15

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for relief from the February 10, 2014 order issued by Magistrate

16

Judge James. In that order, Judge James held that defendant had met its burden to show that the attorney

17

client privilege applied to a number of documents that plaintiffs have sought in discovery.

18

Plaintiffs assert that Judge James erred because she found that the privilege applied based on

19

defendant’s detailed privilege log and not on the basis of any affidavits or evidence submitted by

20

defendant. However, the Ninth Circuit has “previously recognized a number of means of sufficiently

21

establishing the [attorney client] privilege, one of which is the privilege log approach.” In re Grand

22

Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992). The cases cited by plaintiffs do not hold that

23

affidavits are required in order to determine whether the attorney client privilege applies. Further, as

24

defendant notes, defendant sought to submit declarations to Judge James in connection with this

25

discovery dispute and plaintiffs objected. See Docket No. 176 at 4.

26

Plaintiffs also contend that Judge James erroneously rejected plaintiffs’ evidence (the Kenswil

27

and Hoffman deposition testimony), which plaintiffs assert sufficiently rebutted the claim of privilege.

28

The Court finds no error in Judge James’s assessment of that testimony.

1

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. This order resolves Docket No. 193.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: April 7, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2