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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?