Stardock Systems, Inc. v. PAUL REICHE III, et al.

Filing 93

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting in part and denying in part 77 Discovery Letter Brief.(kawlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2018)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

STARDOCK SYSTEMS, INC.,

Case No. 4:17-cv-07025-SBA (KAW)

Plaintiff,

6

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF

v.

7
8

PAUL REICHE III, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 77

Defendants.

9

On October 30, 2018, the parties filed a 9-page Joint Discovery Letter Brief (“JDLB”) (1

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

cover page, 1 attestation page and a 7-page letter), attaching two exhibits totaling 12 pages and a

12

1-page affidavit attestation. (Dkt. No. 77.) Notably, Exhibit B is a detailed privilege log of the 61

13

documents withheld by Defendants Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford (“Defendants”) and

14

third-party Singer Associates (“Singer”), a public relations (“PR”) firm, on the grounds of being

15

covered by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. (Dkt. No. 77-2, Ex. B.)

16

In the JDLB, Defendants and Singer “seek an order quashing Stardock’s Subpoena to Singer,

17

which seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege” and requests the Court to rule on whether they

18

need to comply with Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 11 & 12; 4, 6, 7 & 8; and 3, 5, and 9.

19

As discussed below, the Court QUASHES Plaintiff’s subpoena and ORDERS that

20

Defendants and/or Singer are not required to produce documents responsive to Document Request

21

Nos. 1, 2, 11 & 12; 4, 6, 7 & 8; and 3, 5, and 9.

22

I.

23
24

BACKGROUND
This is a trademark action where Plaintiff Stardock, maker of a recent video game called

“Star Control: Origins,” is suing Defendants Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford. 1

25
26
27
28

1

According to the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is specifically suing Defendants for
“trademark infringement, counterfeiting, unfair competition and false designation of origin, false
advertising, trademark dilution and declaratory judgment regarding ownership of trademarks
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., copyright infringement, submission of false
DMCA notices, and declaratory judgment regarding ownership of copyrights under the Copyright
Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and trademark infringement and unfair competition,

1

Defendants created the video games of “Star Control” in 1990 and “Star Control II” in

2

1992. According to Defendants’ Opening Position, this dispute concerns the intellectual property

3

(“IP”) rights to the “Star Control” video games that Defendants created and developed 25-30 years

4

ago. (Dkt. No. 77 at 3.) At that time, Defendants initially licensed Accolade, Inc. (“Accolade”) to

5

publish Star Control I-II, but that license expired in 2001. (Id.) Defendants, however, planned to

6

develop a sequel. (Id.) In 2013, Plaintiff Stardock bought the “Star Control” trademark registration

7

from Accolade’s successor out of bankruptcy. (Id.) Plaintiff Stardock then asked Defendants to

8

license their copyrighted material from Star Control I-II, but Defendants declined. (Id.) In its suit,

9

Plaintiff Stardock alleges that Defendants are infringing the “Star Control” trademark that they
own and their registered “Star Control” copyrights. See (Dkt. No. 72 at 38-44, 48-50, 52

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(trademark-related claims); 44-47 (copyright-related claims)). In response, Defendants allege that

12

Plaintiff is attempting to steal their IP and preventing them from developing their sequel to Star

13

Control II by, inter alia, “a) selling Star Control I and II on [Plaintiff Stardock’s] website; b)

14

copying elements of Star Control I and II in its new Star Control: Origins game; and c) applying to

15

register trademarks” on character names from Star Control I and II.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 3.)

16

Defendants state that since October 2017 – the present suit was filed on December 8, 2017

17

– Plaintiff Stardock has engaged in a public relations (“PR”) war against them, consisting of

18

hundreds of posts on online forums and social media platforms, mostly by Stardock’s owner and

19

CEO, Brad Wardell. (Id. at 4) (citing Dkt. No. 40-2 to 40-11). According to Defendants, these

20

“posts blatantly misrepresented the facts and seek to sway public opinion in favor of Stardock and

21

its new Star Control: Origins game, while casting a shadow over Reiche and Ford and their game,

22

thereby forcing them to settle this case and abandon their IP rights.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 3.)

23

In response, after the current action was filed on December 8, 2017, Defendants’ counsel

24

(but not Defendants themselves) hired and retained third-party PR firm Singer to provide

25

communications and PR counseling from mid-February to mid-March of 2018. According to

26

Defendants, “Singer provided input on legal strategy, including regarding initial pleadings and

27
28

contributory trademark infringement and tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage and contractual relations under California common law.” (Dkt. No. 72 at 2.)
2

1

communications about the case to counteract Stardock’s false and negative statements.” See (Ex.

2

B) (listing entries that are email communications to Singer from Defendants’ attorneys involving

3

“draft Answer and Counterclaim,” “strategy for response to initial press inquiry,” and “settlement

4

negotiations.”)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged Singer to “orchestrate a social and other media

5
6

assault on Stardock and in particular its CEO, Brad Wardell…in an effort to influence public

7

opinion and indeed turn it against Stardock” by engaging in “inflammatory” postings and

8

representations that appear to be related to the current litigation.2
On or about April 3, 2018, Plaintiff Stardock served Singer with a Subpoena asking for,

9

among other things, all documents relating to communications between Singer and Reiche, Ford,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and their counsel. (Dkt. No. 50 at 5.) In response to this Subpoena, Singer produced “responsive,

12

non-privileged documents in its possession, including communications with reporters, the [final]

13

press release on the case, and related internet posts.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 4.) On April 27, 2018,

14

Defendants filed a Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena. (Dkt. No. 40.) On May 1, 2018, the

15

Court terminated the Motion to Quash because the undersigned “does not entertain discovery

16

motions filed by the parties, and instead requires them to file joint discovery letters to address

17

pending discovery disputes.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 1.) On June 28, 2018, the parties filed a first Joint

18

Discovery Letter Brief. (Dkt. No. 48.) On July 19, 2018, the Court terminated that first Joint

19

Discovery Letter Brief because it was “not in the format required by the undersigned’s standing

20

order.” (Dkt. No. 52 at 1.) On October 30, 2018, the parties filed a second Joint Discovery Letter

21

Brief, which is the JDLB being resolved by this present Order. (Dkt. No. 77.)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Stardock, in its Opening Position, states that the “following tweet is representative of
the social media postings by Singer itself in support of” Singer’s publicity campaign:
2

“When @Stardock’s Star Control copyright lawsuit comes to light,
Brad Wardell @draginol and Stardock will be publicly humiliated for
their theft of Star Control IP from @Dogar_And_Kazon and their
deception and attempts at bullying them.”
(Dkt. No. 77 at 5.) Defendants responded by indicating that tweet was “not made at Reiche
and Ford’s direction nor with their approval and was deleted instantly.” It appears, however, that
the tweet was something that Singer prepared for the current litigation.
3

1

II.

RELEVANT AUTHORITY

2

A.

Attorney-Client Privilege

3

“A party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the existence

4

of an attorney-client relationship and the privileged nature of the communication.” United States v.

5

Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir.2010) (quotations omitted). “Because it impedes the full and

6

free discovery of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.” Id. (quotations

7

omitted). The Ninth Circuit applies an eight-factor test to determine whether communications are

8

covered by the attorney-client privilege: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a

9

professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose,
(4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived. Id.

12

The case of In re Grand Jury Subpoenas held that “(1) confidential communications (2)

13

between lawyers and public relation consultants (3) hired by the lawyers to assist them in dealing

14

with the media in cases [or litigation] (4) that are made for the purpose of giving or receiving

15

advice (5) directed at handling the client’s legal problems are protected by the attorney client

16

privilege.” 265 F. Supp. 2d 321, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The attorney client privilege, in appropriate

17

circumstances, “extends to otherwise privileged communications that involve persons assisting the

18

lawyer in the rendition of legal services.” Id. at 325. “This principle has been applied universally

19

to cover office personnel, such as secretaries and law clerks, who assist lawyers in performing

20

their tasks” and has been more broadly applied, for example, in a Second Circuit case where it was

21

held that a client’s communications with an accountant employed by his attorney were privileged

22

when they were made for the purpose of enabling the attorney to understand the client’s situation

23

in order to provide legal advice. Id. (citing United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir.

24

1961) (Judge Friendly stating that the privilege extends from a client to an accountant “where the

25

client in the first instance consults a lawyer who retains an accountant as a listening post, or

26

consults the lawyer with his own accountant present.”))

27
28

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas also makes the clear distinction between the scenario where
the client themselves hire a PR firm for general PR services – which is the situation that occurs in
4

the case of Schaeffer v. Gregory Village Partners, 78 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1200 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

2

(where the client hired a PR firm to perform a variety of mostly non-legal tasks for the client as a

3

“functional employee” such as conducting community research, identifying key contacts,

4

attending various meetings, developing fact sheets and reports) – and the scenario where the

5

lawyers of the client actually hire the PR firm to manage publicity for the litigation or the case that

6

the lawyers are trying because the lawyers “need[ed] outside help” as they presumably are not

7

skilled at public relations. See Grand Jury Subpoenas, 265 F. Supp. 2d at 326 (“[PR] consultants

8

engaged by lawyers to advise them on matters such as whether the state of public opinion in a

9

community makes a change of venue desirable, whether jurors from particular backgrounds are

10

likely to be disposed favorably to the client, how a client should behave while testifying in order

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

to impress jurors favorably and other matters routinely the stuff of jury and personal

12

communications [or PR] consultants come within the attorney-client privilege, as they have a

13

close nexus to the attorney’s role in advocating the client’s cause before a court.”)

14

Moreover, if a third-party consultant is “involv[ed] in the giving of legal advice” the

15

attorney-client privilege attaches, but if the consultant is retained for nonlegal purposes, the

16

privilege is lost. In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-03-3709, 2006 WL

17

1699536 SI(EMC), at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006).

18

B.

Work Product

19

Work-product protection derives from Rule 26(b)(3). Under that rule, attorney work-

20

product prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial is protected from disclosure. See Fed. R.

21

Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) (“a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in

22

anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other

23

party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent.))”; Great Am. Assurance Co. v.

24

Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., 669 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2009). A court must also “protect

25

against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s

26

attorney or other representative concerning the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B).

27
28

In the context of Rule 26, PR firms may fall within the category of an attorney’s consultant
or at the very least their agent. Thus, “an attorney does not waive [work-product] protection when
5

1

he shares otherwise valid work product with a consultant for PR assistance, so long as the

2

communications are intended to be confidential.” Light Out Holdings, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 14-

3

cv-872 JAH (NLS), 2015 WL 11254687, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2015). “To withhold a

4

document or communication made for both PR advice and litigation strategy, a party must show

5

that the document ‘would not have been created in substantially similar form but for the prospect

6

of litigation,’ and that ‘the litigation purpose so permeates any [PR] purpose that the two purposes

7

cannot be discretely separated from the factual nexus as a whole.” Id. (citing In re Grand Jury

8

Subpoena (Torf), 357 F.3d 900, 908, 910 (9th Cir. 2004)).

9

III.

10

ANALYSIS
The JDLB raises four separate issues, which will be addressed as follows:
(A) Whether Plaintiff Stardock’s Subpoena to Singer should
be quashed on the grounds of invading attorney-client privilege
and/or the work product doctrine, or alternatively, does the attorneyclient privilege or work product doctrine extend to Singer from
Defendants’ counsel?
(B) Whether Defendants and Singer should produce
documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 11 & 12.
(C) Whether Defendants and Singer should produce
documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 4, 6, 7 & 8.
(D) Whether Defendants and Singer should produce
documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 3, 5, and 9.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

A.

18

Plaintiff argues that neither the attorney-client or work product privilege applies here, and

19

that it is entitled to the third-party discovery that it seeks from Singer, partly because permissible

20

discovery is broad and includes “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

21

defense and proportional to the needs of this case.” (Id. at 5.) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.)

22
23

The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine

1. Arguments Raised by Defendants and Singer
Defendants and Singer contend that Defendants’ counsel retained Singer to provide

24

communications and PR counseling from mid-February to mid-March 2018, as well as “input on

25

legal strategy, including” input “regarding initial pleadings and communications about the case to

26

counteract” Plaintiff’s “false and negative statements.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 4.) Singer also “produced

27

responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, including communications with reporters,

28

the press release on the case, and related internet posts.” (Id.) Defendants and Singer further argue
6

1

that the “remaining documents in Singer’s possession that are responsive to [Plaintiff’s] Subpoena

2

are private, non-public communications between and among [Defendants] Reiche and Ford, their

3

counsel, and Singer, relating to legal advice sought by Reiche and Ford concerning their response

4

to this lawsuit in light of Stardock’s strategy.” (Id.)
Defendants and Singer rely on In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, which states that the:

5

11

“ability of lawyers to perform some of their most fundamental client
functions…would be undermined seriously if lawyers were not able
to engage in frank discussions of facts and strategies with [their]
public relations consultants…lawyers may need skilled advice as to
whether and how possible statements to the press…would be reported
in order to advise a client as to whether the making of particular
statements would be in the client’s legal interest. And there simply is
no practical way for such discussions to occur with the public
relations consultants if the lawyers were not able to inform the
consultants of…[their] defense strategies and tactics, free of the fear
that the consultants could be forced to disclose those discussions.”

12

265 F. Supp. 2d at 330-331. Defendants and Singer further aver that “[s]imilarly, the

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

13

present case received press coverage as a result of Stardock’s PR efforts against [Defendants]

14

Reiche and Ford, and their counsel retained Singer to help present a more balanced picture” and

15

that the “withheld documents are communications related to giving and receiving legal advice

16

about the appropriate response to the lawsuit and making related public statements, and therefore

17

are subject to the attorney-client privilege.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 4-5.)
Defendants and Singer additionally note that some of the withheld documents are subject

18
19

to the work product doctrine such as drafts of the counterclaim and press release regarding the

20

case because such materials were prepared for litigation by Defendants’ counsel and consultant

21

and were intended to be confidential, and some of the other withheld documents also contain

22

“mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories” of Defendants’ counsel. (Id. at 5.)

23

Finally, Defendants and Singer assert that Singer’s non-public communications are not

24

relevant to any party’s claims and defenses in this case, and that Stardock cannot explain how

25

these private withheld communications would be relevant to claims in the case such as

26

infringement and damages and claims not in the case such as defamation, which they additionally

27

argue that Stardock is barred from pleading under California Civil Code 47. (Id.)

28

//
7

2. Arguments Raised by Plaintiff

1
2

In response, Plaintiff asserts that the requested discovery “relates directly to Stardock’s

3

claims including without limitation communications relevant to: the extent to which Defendants

4

have deliberately attempted to confuse the public with regard to its own game-development with

5

the ‘Star Control’ mark; the damages Stardock has suffered as a result of Defendants’ deliberate

6

use of the Star Control mark; an inquiry as to the strength of the Star Control mark; and Stardock’s

7

contention that Defendants are waging a media war against Stardock to fulfill their objective in

8

filing a counterclaim.” (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff further argues that Defendants are unable to meet the burden that a party asserting

10

the attorney-client privilege has in establishing the existence of an attorney-client relationship and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

the privileged nature of the communication. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff also contends that Defendants do

12

not apply the correct test for when the attorney-client privilege applies, citing several cases from

13

this and other Districts in the Ninth Circuit, and from the Southern District of New York. (Id.)

14

Namely, Plaintiff relies on Schaeffer for the proposition that the attorney-client privilege applies to

15

consultants only when two criteria are met: (1) the communication is for the purpose of providing

16

legal advice; and (2) the “consultant” is the functional equivalent of an employee or “functional

17

employee” of the party seeking to invoke the privilege. (Id.) (citing Schaeffer, 78 F. Supp. 3d at

18

1202-03).

19

Moreover, Plaintiff distinguishes the In re Grand Jury Subpoenas case cited by Defendants

20

by stating that there, the court did not apply the Ninth Circuit standards for the application of the

21

privilege, and the PR firm was hired in that case for the explicit purpose of aiding the attorneys in

22

avoiding a criminal indictment of their client. (Id. at 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the In

23

re Grand Jury Subpoena court held that the work was not typical PR work insofar as its target

24

audience was not the public at large, but rather the prosecutors and regulators responsible for

25

charging decisions involving their client. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that this is entirely distinct from the

26

instant case, which does not involve PR work as instrumental to achieving Defendants’ legal

27

goals, and some communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal services were even

28

determined by the court to fall outside the attorney-client privilege. (Id.)
8

1

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ reliance on California Civil Code section 47 is

2

incorrect because section 47 is not an evidentiary or discovery exemption privilege that allows

3

Defendants or Singer to avoid Plaintiff’s Subpoena, and the work product rule – which only

4

protects documents prepared by a party or his representative “in anticipation of litigation” – does

5

not protect PR communications from disclosure because public relations work is generally treated

6

as business strategy, rather than a legal one, and is not protected as work product. (Id.)

7
8
9

3. The Court’s Ruling
Here, the Court finds that because Defendants’ counsel (and not Defendants themselves)
hired the PR firm of Singer to provide PR counseling specifically for the purposes of litigation
strategy in the current action, just like the services the PR firm in the In re Grand Jury Subpoenas

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

case rendered, the attorney-client privilege extends to the withheld communications between

12

Singer and Defendants’ counsel pertaining to “giving and receiving legal advice about the

13

appropriate response to the lawsuit and making related public statements.” (Id. at 5.) Examples of

14

these communications can be seen in the 61 documents listed in the privilege log, which are

15

primarily e-mail communications between Singer and Defendants’ counsel regarding the “draft

16

Answer and Counterclaim,” as well as “potential exhibits” attached to, and the “filing” of said

17

draft Answer and Counterclaim; “response to initial press inquiry,” and the strategy related to said

18

response; “potential reporters and publications requested by counsel”; “claims”; “draft press

19

release”; “settlement negotiations”; “public posts”; and “services” as well as “potential future

20

strategy.” (Ex. B at 2-4.) These communications relate to Defendants’ counsel’s litigation strategy

21

in dealing with the present suit, and the dispensing and exchange of legal advice in responding to

22

the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff and launching a public or social media based campaign that will most

23

favor Defendants in terms of their perception in the current legal action. Consequently, these

24

communications are “(1) confidential communications” made (2) between lawyers and public

25

relation consultants [e.g., Singer] (3) hired by the lawyers to assist them in dealing with the media

26

in cases [or litigation] (4) that are made for the purpose of giving or receiving advice (5) directed

27

at handling the client’s [or Defendants’] legal problems” that are undeniably “protected by the

28

attorney client privilege.” Grand Jury Subpoenas, 265 F. Supp. 2d at 331.
9

1

Plaintiff’s reliance on Schaeffer’s “functional employee” test is misguided because in

2

Schaeffer, it was the client that hired the PR firm, not the lawyers of that client. Therefore, the

3

Schaeffer court found that the PR firm in that case was acting as a “functional employee” of the

4

client in performing primarily non-legal tasks and being generally “the public face” of the client

5

company. See Schaeffer, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 1204 (“Craig [the PR consultant] was a ‘functional

6

employee’ of Gregory Village [the client]…[Craig] also interacted with neighbors…to gather

7

information from them regarding their concerns about the contamination; to secure access

8

agreements so Gregory Village could perform on-site sampling; to plan and execute sampling on

9

site;…When attending public meetings, interacting with neighbors and…[i]n all these activities,
Craig acted as the public face of the company and…acted as Gregory Village's functional

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

employee for the purposes of the attorney-client privilege.”) This case is analogous to In re Grand

12

Jury Subpoenas, where a PR firm was hired by a party’s lawyers for litigation strategy purposes or

13

to provide PR, publicity and media consulting for the legal case that the attorneys were litigating.

14

That the case in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas was a criminal one is of no moment because,

15

whether a case is criminal or civil, the attorney-client privilege would extend to a consultant, or a

16

PR firm working directly with the attorneys for the purposes of assisting them in providing the

17

soundest legal advice to their client and employing the optimal publicity strategy to win the case.

18

Hence, the Court QUASHES Plaintiff’s subpoena insofar as it requests communications or

19

documents protected by the attorney-client privilege that has been extended to Singer from

20

Defendants’ counsel.

21

The Court similarly finds that the work product doctrine extends to the communications

22

exchanged between Singer and Defendants’ counsel. As can be seen by the privilege log,

23

documents such as a “draft Answer and Counterclaim” and a “draft press release” (Ex. B at 1-4)

24

would contain “the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s

25

attorney or other representative concerning the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B). Moreover,

26

documents such as a “draft Answer and Counterclaim” and a “draft press release” are “prepared in

27

anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Defendants’ counsel also did not

28

waive their work-product protection when they shared otherwise valid work product (e.g. draft
10

1

Answers or Counterclaims) with a PR firm for assistance because the communications were

2

intended to be confidential. Light Out Holdings, 2015 WL 11254687, at *4. Singer and

3

Defendants have sufficiently shown that they may validly withhold the communications described

4

in the privilege log, which were made for both PR advice and litigation strategy purposes because

5

those documents or communications “would not have been created in substantially similar form

6

but for the prospect of litigation,” and that “the litigation purpose so permeates any [PR] purpose”

7

of these communications so “that the two purposes cannot be discretely separated from the factual

8

nexus as a whole.” Id.; Grand Jury Subpoena (Torf), 357 F.3d at 908, 910. Accordingly, the Court

9

also hereby QUASHES Plaintiff’s subpoena insofar as it requests communications protected by

10

the work product doctrine.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B.

Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12

12

Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12 request all documents relating to communications

13

between Singer and Defendants and between Singer and Defendants’ counsel. (Dkt. No. 77 at 6.)

14

Because these requested documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-

15

product doctrine as detailed above, the Court ORDERS that Defendants and/or Singer are not

16

required to produce the documents requested by Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12.

17

C.

Document Request Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8

18

Document Request Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8 request agreements, invoices and payment(s) made

19

between Singer and Defendants. (Id. at 8.) Because such documents would describe, in detail, the

20

activities that both Defendants’ attorneys and Singer undertook in litigating this case or strategic,

21

PR-related tasks accomplished for the purpose of best litigating this case, they should also be

22

protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. See Travelers Prop. Cas.

23

Co. of Am. v. Centex Homes, No. 11-3638-SC, 2013 WL 707918, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2013)

24

(“Under Ninth Circuit authority, ‘attorney-client privilege embraces attorney time, records and

25

statements to the extent that they reveal litigation strategy and the nature of the services

26

provided.’”) (citing Real v. Cont'l Group, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 211, 213 (N.D. Cal. 1986)); Bell v. Ken

27

Lee, No. 13-CV-05820-SI, 2017 WL 1956828, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017) (stating that

28

invoices and agreements such as “correspondence, bills, ledgers, statements, and time records
11

1

which also reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the

2

specific nature of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law, fall within the

3

[attorney-client] privilege.”) (citing Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th

4

Cir. 1992)). As a result, the Court ORDERS that Defendants and/or Singer are not required to

5

produce the documents requested by Document Request Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8.

6

D.

Document Request Nos. 3, 5 and 9

7

Document Request Nos. 3, 5 and 9 request all documents relating to Stardock, the Classic

8

Star Control Games and all internal communications relating to Stardock or the Star Control

9

Games. (Dkt. No. 77 at 9.) The Court finds that these document requests are overbroad.
Additionally, Defendants and Singer have already produced all communications related to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Stardock and/or the Star Control games with third parties, and any internal communications

12

relating to legal advice sought by Reiche and Ford are subject to the attorney-client privilege and

13

also work-product doctrine, as discussed above, and are therefore not discoverable. As a result, the

14

Court ORDERS that Defendants and/or Singer are not required to produce the documents

15

requested by Document Request Nos. 3, 5, and 9.

16

IV.

CONCLUSION

17

In sum, the Court:

18

QUASHES Plaintiff’s subpoena on the grounds that the requested documents or

19

communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine;

20

and

21
22
23
24

ORDERS that Defendants and/or Singer are not required to produce documents responsive
to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 11 & 12; 4, 6, 7 & 8; and 3, 5, and 9.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
12