Planet Aid, Inc. et al v. Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting et al
Filing
183
ORDER REGARDING WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/21/2018. (Corley, Jacqueline) (Filed on 11/21/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PLANET AID, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
ORDER REGARDING WAIVER OF
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
v.
10
REVEAL, CENTER FOR
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.17-cv-03695-MMC (JSC)
Dkt. No. 156
Defendants.
12
13
The Court held a hearing on the parties’ various discovery disputes on November 9, 2018.
14
The disputes were resolved as set forth on the record; however, the Court took under submission
15
Plaintiff’s argument regarding waiver of attorney-client privilege as set forth in Docket No. 156.
16
The Court now resolves that dispute.
17
18
DISCUSSION
Defendants have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. (Dkt. No. .) Two declarations
19
submitted in support of that motion are at issue here: Kevin Sullivan and Amy Pyle. Mr. Sullivan
20
states at one point in his declaration: “I, along with the rest of the team, met with CIR’s lawyers to
21
review any legal concerns.” (Dkt. No. 112 para. 4.) Ms. Pyle attests in one sentence of one long
22
paragraph of her declaration: “Once I had the text story back from Bob, I took it through its final
23
legal review alongside Rosey, Matt and Amy W.” (Dkt. No. 110 para. 20.) Plaintiff thereafter
24
served Defendants with a document request seeking “documents or communications concerning
25
any meetings with legal counsel, to which Kevin Sullivan referred in paragraph 4 of his
26
Declaration, as well as the "final legal review" to which Amy Pyle referred in her Declaration in
27
paragraph 20 of her Declaration.” (Dkt. No 146 at 12.) Defendants refused to produce any
28
documents in response to this request on the grounds such documents and communications are
1
protected by the attorney-client privilege. See Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 832
2
F.2d 1287, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“Pre-publication discussions between libel counsel and editors
3
or reporters would seem to come squarely within the scope of the privilege as defined in
4
Upjohn.”).
5
Plaintiff does not contest that the reporters’ communications with legal counsel regarding
6
counsel’s review of the articles is privileged. Instead, Plaintiff insists that Defendants waived the
7
attorney-client privilege as to their “legal review” communications with counsel because they put
8
the review at issue in this lawsuit. The Court disagrees.
A party may waive the attorney-client privilege by raising an advice of counsel defense.
10
See Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
1186, 1196 (9th Cir. 2001) (in patent action alleging willful infringement, defendant waived
12
privilege by asserting that he continued infringing on the advice of his counsel). Here, however,
13
Defendants have not raised the advice of their counsel in their motion to strike. They nowhere
14
contend in their motion or the supporting declarations that they could not have acted with actual
15
malice because of the advice they received from their counsel.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rhone-Poulenc Rover Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851, 863 (3d Cir. 1994), upon
which Plaintiff relies, demonstrates the lack of waiver. There the court explained:
There is authority for the proposition that a party can waive the attorney client
privilege by asserting claims or defenses that put his or her attorney's advice in
issue in the litigation. For example, a client may waive the privilege as to certain
communications with a lawyer by filing a malpractice action against the lawyer. A
defendant may also waive the privilege by asserting reliance on the advice of
counsel as an affirmative defense. In an action for patent infringement, where a
party is accused of acting willfully, and where that party asserts as an essential
element of its defense that it relied upon the advice of counsel, the party waives the
privilege regarding communications pertaining to that advice.
In these cases, the client has made the decision and taken the affirmative step in the
litigation to place the advice of the attorney in issue. Courts have found that by
placing the advice in issue, the client has opened to examination facts relating to
that advice. Advice is not in issue merely because it is relevant, and does not
necessarily become in issue merely because the attorney's advice might affect the
client's state of mind in a relevant manner. The advice of counsel is placed in
issue where the client asserts a claim or defense, and attempts to prove that claim or
defense by disclosing or describing an attorney client communication.
2
1
2
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 863 (3d Cir. 1994) (emphasis added).
3
Defendants nowhere claim that they did not act with actual malice because of they relied on the
4
advice of their lawyers. They nowhere try to prove their claim “by disclosing or describing an
5
attorney client communication.” Id. Instead, in recounting the factual narrative of what they did
6
before publishing the challenged articles, they recited the fact that they consulted with counsel.
7
Under Plaintiff’s theory, to avoid a waiver Defendants would have had to submit an inaccurate or
8
at least incomplete declaration that omitted the true fact that they consulted with counsel. They do
9
not cite any cases to support that remarkable proposition. Instead, Rhone-Poulenc holds that
advice is not placed in issue merely because it is relevant. Id. The Court finds no waiver on this
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
record.
12
Further, Defendants did not waive the privilege by failing to produce a privilege log. A
13
privilege log is required if a party withholds attorney-client privileged documents responsive to an
14
otherwise proper document request. But the request at issue here sought only attorney-client
15
privileged documents--an improper request given that Defendants have not placed the advice of
16
their counsel at issue. The Court finds that no log is required in these circumstances.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2018
19
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?