Stardock Systems, Inc. v. PAUL REICHE III, et al.
Filing
52
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 48 6/28/18 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
STARDOCK SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
Case No. 4:17-cv-07025-SBA (KAW)
ORDER TERMINATING 6/28/18 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 48
PAUL REICHE III, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
On June 28, 2018, the parties filed a joint discovery letter pertaining to Defendants Paul
14
Reiche III and Frederick Ford’s request to quash a subpoena issued to third-party public relations
15
firm Singer Associates, Inc. on the grounds that the documents sought are covered by the attorney-
16
client and/or work product privileges. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 48 at 1-2.)
17
Upon review of the joint letter, the Court is unable to resolve the issue of whether
18
Defendants’ communications with Singer are privileged, because the joint letter is not in the
19
format required by the undersigned’s standing order. (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing
20
Order ¶ 13.) As a result, the Court is unable to ascertain which requests for production are at
21
issue, particularly given that some documents have been produced. (See Joint Letter at 1, Ex. A at
22
7-8.) Accordingly, the joint letter is TERMINATED, and the parties are ordered to further meet
23
and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute without further court intervention.
24
To aid the parties in their meet and confer efforts, the parties are advised that the
25
undersigned is inclined to narrowly construe the attorney-client and work product privileges, such
26
that “[p]rivilege will only attach in the very limited circumstance where disclosure to [Singer] was
27
necessary for [Defendants’] attorney to render sound legal advice.” Lights Out Holdings, LLC v.
28
Nike, Inc., 2015 WL 11254687, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2015); see also In re Grand Jury
1
2
Subpoena (Torf), 357 F.3d 900, 908, 910 (9th Cir. 2004).
Should the meet and confer efforts be unsuccessful in resolving all remaining disputes, the
3
parties are ordered to file another joint letter that complies with the undersigned’s standing order,
4
which will facilitate the Court’s resolution of the issues. The letter should be organized by request
5
number, should address which type of privilege—attorney-client, work product or both—is being
6
asserted and why it does or does not apply, and refer to the document numbers in the attached
7
privilege log. Additionally, in light of the recently-filed second amended complaint, the parties
8
should also address Rule 26 relevancy and proportionality as to each document request.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?