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)

Download PDF
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?