Gokhale v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 76

ORDER re 59 Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/22/2018. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

SUSHAMA GOKHALE,

Case No. 17-cv-03845-JST (DMR)

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

v.

8
9

DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 59

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The court has reviewed the documents Plaintiff submitted for in camera review pursuant to

12

the court’s minute order dated October 11, 2018 (Docket No. 71). These documents relate to Item

13

Nos. 25, 26, 56, and 65 of Plaintiff’s privilege log.1

14

The documents are email communications between Plaintiff and her counsel with

15

attachments. The emails and attachments were forwarded by Plaintiff to third parties. Plaintiff

16

redacted the portions of the email communications between Plaintiff and her counsel. Plaintiff did

17

not produce the attachments to Item Nos. 25, 26, and 65; Plaintiff previously produced the

18

attachment to Item No. 55.

19

With respect to the email communications, Plaintiff waived attorney-client privilege by

20

forwarding those communications to third parties who appear to be her family members. Those

21
22

communications are not attorney work product. Accordingly, Plaintiff must produce unredacted
copies of those emails to Defendants no later than October 24, 2018.
The attachments to these communications are protected by work product privilege. Plaintiff

23
24
25
26

did not waive work product protection for the attachments. Skynet Elec. Co., Ltd v. Flextronics Int'l,
Ltd., No. C 12-06317 WHA, 2013 WL 6623874, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) (finding that waiver
of work-product immunity occurs only “[i]f a document otherwise protected by work-

27
28

1

Plaintiff states that she withdrew her assertion of privilege from Item Nos. 43 and 44 as she believes
those documents are not responsive to Defendants’ requests and will therefore not be produced.

1

product immunity is disclosed to others with an actual intention, or reasonable probability, that an

2

opposing party may see the document”). Plaintiff does not have to produce the attachments.

O ORD
IT IS S

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

LI

A

H

7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ERED

. Ryu
______________________________________
onna M
Judge D
Donna M. Ryu
ER
C
F
D IS T IC T O
United StatesNMagistrate Judge
R
RT

6

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

S

Dated: October 22, 2018

NO

5

UNIT
ED

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

3