Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 901

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 168 Motion for Protective Order. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9

ANNA GATTI, et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
ALMAWAVE USA, INC.'S MOTION TO
QUASH AND/OR FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 168

Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. (“Loop”) issued a subpoena to third party law firm Orrick,

12

Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (“Orrick”) seeking the production of 30 categories of documents

13

related to Orrick’s former representation of and communications with Defendants Almawave

14

USA, Inc. (“Almawave”), Almaviva S.p.A., and Almawave S.r.l (together, the “Almaviva

15

entities”). In its responses and objections to the subpoena, Orrick objected that a number of the

16

requests for production therein sought documents protected by the attorney-client privilege

17

belonging either to Almawave S.r.l. or Almaviva, or to Orrick itself. To the extent that the

18

subpoena requested communications that could be subject to a claim of privilege asserted by

19

Almawave S.r.l. or Almaviva, Orrick forwarded those documents to counsel for the Almaviva

20

entities so that counsel could make any privilege determinations and object on those grounds.

21

Almawave and Orrick then separately moved for a protective order and/or to quash Loop’s

22

subpoena. [Docket Nos. 168 (Almawave’s motion); 169 (Orrick’s motion).] Loop opposed both

23

motions. [Docket Nos. 176 (Opp’n to Orrick’s motion), 177 (Opp’n to Almawave’s motion).]

24

Following a hearing, the court ordered Almawave and Orrick to submit documents

25

withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege for in camera review, and ordered Almawave to

26

highlight in its submission any proposed redactions to the documents. [Docket No. 323.] The

27

court previously ruled on Orrick’s motion for a protective order and/or to quash Loop’s subpoena

28

(Docket No. 430), and now enters the following order on Almawave’s motion.

Almawave timely lodged the documents at issue, which total over 4,000 pages. The court

1
2

has reviewed each of the documents. The documents contain email communications between

3

Orrick and its then-clients, the Almaviva entities, that were made for the purpose of obtaining or

4

giving legal advice, as well as invoices and billing records for said representation. The court finds

5

that Almawave’s proposed redactions are appropriate and justified. However, there are a number

6

of attachments transmitted between the Almaviva entities and Orrick. The court has examined the

7

attachments themselves, many of which the court finds are not “confidential communications

8

between attorneys and clients, which are made for the purpose of giving legal advice.” United

9

States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Those documents are:

CTRL000075205-75206 (USPTO patent application publication); CTRL000075212 (USPTO

12

communication); CTRL000075656 (filed Articles of Incorporation); CTRL000074204 (Bureau of

13

Economic Analysis guide); CTRL000074426-74427 (Stock Purchase Agreement, notice of

14

issuance of stock); CTRL000074603 (executed agreement between Almawave and IQSystem,

15

Inc.); CTRL000074367-74373 (attachment containing emails between Valeria Sandei and Tony

16

Di Napoli); CTRL000073867 (executed agreement between Almawave and IQSystem, Inc.);

17

CTRL000073870-73871 (executed agreement between Almawave and Tony Di Napoli);

18

CTRL000073872-73873 (executed offer letter and agreement between Almawave and Anna

19

Gatti); and CTRL000074053 (attachment containing emails between Valeria Sandei and Mario

20

Pepe). Since these documents do not qualify as attorney-client privileged communications, they

21

must be produced to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Almawave’s motion to quash and/or for a protective

22

order is granted in part and denied in part. Almawave must produce to Plaintiff the redacted

23

documents, as well as the individual documents listed above, within seven days of the date of this

24

order.

R NIA

______________________________________
u
Donna M. Ryu
a M. Ry
United States dge Donn Judge
Magistrate
Ju

FO

ER

H

2

LI

RT

28

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

27

Dated: September 29, 2016

A

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

25

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

S

CTRL000073737-73745 (copy of patent application submitted to USPTO on 8/1/2014);

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C