Song et al v. Drenberg et al

Filing 85

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 67 Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiff's Privilege Log. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

JAMES K. SONG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No.18-cv-06283-LHK (VKD)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
PLAINTIFF’S PRIVILEGE LOG

v.
AARON DRENBERG,

Re: Dkt. No. 67

Defendant.
The parties ask the Court to resolve a dispute regarding the adequacy of plaintiff James

14

Song’s privilege log. In a separate order (Dkt. No. 84), the Court has concluded that Mr. Song did

15

not adequately assert or preserve any claim of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product

16

protection in his responses to defendant Aaron Drenberg’s first and second sets of requests for

17

production of documents. That order was based on Mr. Song’s deficient written responses to Mr.

18

Drenberg’s document requests, which the Court determined did not comply with Rule 34(b)(2) or

19

this Court’s prior orders. The Court reserved decision regarding whether Mr. Song’s separate

20

privilege log adequately substantiates any claims of privilege or protection.

21

Mr. Song contends that he has properly asserted claims of privilege and work product

22

protection by providing a privilege log that meets the requirements of Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal

23

Rules of Civil Procedure, and that he should not be deemed to have waived any such privileges or

24

protections. Mr. Drenberg contends that the privilege log does not meet the requirements of Rule

25

26(b)(5) or this Court’s prior orders, and therefore Mr. Song has not adequately asserted any

26

privileges or protections.

27
28

For the following reasons, the Court concludes that Mr. Song has not substantiated his
claims of attorney-client privilege or work product protection as to entries 1-7 in his July 8, 2019

1

privilege log.

2

I.

3

BACKGROUND
Mr. Drenberg served his first set of requests for production of documents on Mr. Song on

4

February 21, 2019. Dkt. No. 30 at 1. On May 2, 2019, in response to a prior discovery dispute

5

about these requests, the Court found that Mr. Song had failed to timely respond to the requests

6

and had waived all objections, save those based on the attorney-client privilege or the attorney

7

work product protection. The Court ordered Mr. Song to serve written responses that comply with

8

Rule 34(b)(2) no later than May 10, 2019. Dkt. No. 35 at 4. Mr. Song did not comply with this

9

order. See Dkt. No. 48 at 3–5. On June 19, 2019, the Court again ordered Mr. Song to serve
written responses that comply with Rule 34(b)(2) no later than July 3, 2019, and further ordered

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

him to provide a privilege log no later than July 8, 2019, identifying any document for which a

12

claim of privilege or protection is asserted and describing the basis for such claim with the

13

specificity required by Rule 26(b)(5). Dkt. No. 48 at 5.

14

Meanwhile, Mr. Drenberg served a second set of requests for production of documents on

15

Mr. Song on or around April 29, 2019. See Dkt. No. 66 at 1. Per the parties’ agreement, Mr. Song

16

served written responses to this second set of document requests on July 10, 2019. As ordered,

17

Mr. Song also served amended written responses to Mr. Drenberg’s first set of document requests.

18

Dkt. No. 65 at 2. In his responses to Mr. Drenberg’s first and second sets of document requests,

19

Mr. Song asserted no claims of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection,

20

except for a claim of work product protection in response to Requests Nos. 100 and 101. Dkt. No.

21

65, Attach. A; Dkt. No. 66, Attach. A. In a separate order, the Court has concluded that those

22

work product protection claims lack merit. Dkt. No. 84.

23

On July 8, 2019, Mr. Song served a privilege log on Mr. Drenberg. Dkt. No. 67 at 2. The

24

cover page of the log says that it concerns documents responsive to Mr. Drenberg’s first set of

25

document requests. Dkt. No. 67, Attach. A. The log contains 15 entries and indicates that Mr.

26

Song has withheld documents based on the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product

27

doctrine. Id. Most of the entries on the log refer to collections of documents or communications

28

that span months or even years. The log does not indicate how many discrete documents have
2

1

been withheld or identify the requests to which they are responsive. Id.

2

II.

3

LEGAL STANDARD
The attorney-client privilege applies only where the communication concerns legal advice

sought from an attorney in his or her capacity as a professional legal advisor, and where the

5

communication is made in confidence, is intended to be maintained in confidence by the client,

6

and is not disclosed or waived. United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999–1000 (9th Cir. 2002)

7

(citing 8 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2292, at 554 (McNaughton rev. 1961)). The privilege

8

protects confidential disclosures made by a client to an attorney in order to obtain legal advice, as

9

well as an attorney’s advice in response to such disclosures. United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d

10

600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted). However, not all communications

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

with an attorney are privileged. Id. Because it impedes full and free discovery of the truth, the

12

attorney-client privilege is strictly construed. Id.

13

The party claiming the privilege has the burden to establish that it applies. Martin, 278

14

F.3d at 999–1000. In particular, a party asserting privilege must “describe the nature of the

15

documents . . . in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will

16

enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A); see also Burlington N. &

17

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005)

18

(explaining that a party claiming privilege must “provide sufficient information to enable other

19

parties to evaluate the applicability of the claimed privilege or protection.”). Typically, this is

20

done using a privilege log that identifies “(a) the attorney and client involved, (b) the nature of the

21

document, (c) all persons or entities shown on the document to have received or sent the

22

document, (d) all persons or entities known to have been furnished the document or informed of

23

its substance, and (e) the date the document was generated, prepared, or dated.” In re Grand Jury

24

Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a party may substantiate a claim of

25

privilege by other means. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 306 F.R.D. 234, 237 (N.D. Cal.

26

2015) (“Briefs, declarations or other proof may establish the purpose of the communication or the

27

specific role of the sender and each individual recipient.”).

28

The attorney work product doctrine protects from discovery materials that are prepared by
3

1

or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)). The

2

doctrine provides qualified protection against discovery of the legal strategies and mental

3

impressions of a party’s counsel. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508–10 (1947); Upjohn Co. v.

4

United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390–91 (1981). It does not protect facts from disclosure, unless

5

disclosure of those facts would inherently reveal an attorney’s strategies or mental impressions.

6

See, e.g., O’Toole v. City of Antioch, No. 11 CV 01502 PJH MEJ, 2015 WL 1848134, at *3 (N.D.

7

Cal. Apr. 14, 2015); Hamilton v. RadioShack Corp., No. C 11-00888 LB, 2012 WL 2327191, at

8

*4–5 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2012).
The party asserting the protections of the work product doctrine bears the burden of

9

showing that the documents at issue qualify for protection. Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992). As with claims of attorney-client privilege, the party

12

asserting work product protection must party “describe the nature of the documents . . . in a

13

manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties

14

to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A).

15

III.

16

DISCUSSION
Mr. Drenberg challenges Mr. Song’s privilege log on two grounds. First, Mr. Drenberg

17

contends that the privilege log fails to adequately identify the privileged or protected material

18

withheld or the basis for the privilege or protection claimed. Second, Mr. Drenberg contends that

19

Mr. Song’s counsel’s communications with Daniel Buckles, Kathy Harris, and Angela Moran do

20

not qualify for work product protection.
Sufficiency of Mr. Song’s Privilege Log

21

A.

22

Mr. Drenberg argues that Mr. Song fails to substantiate any privilege or work product

23

claims because the privilege log does not describe the documents or communications at issue with

24

the specificity Rule 26(b)(5) requires. Specifically, Mr. Drenberg points out that the log does not

25

identify the request or requests to which each document is responsive, and it lumps multiple

26

documents and communications into single entries spanning months or years without describing

27
28
4

1

the basis for withholding each distinct document or communication.1 Mr. Song says none of this

2

is necessary. Instead, he relies on an observation in the Advisory Committee notes accompanying

3

the 1980 amendment adding subdivision (b)(5) to Rule 26, which he says endorse describing

4

privileged or protected documents by category.

5

Mr. Song’s privilege log does not adequately disclose the bases for his assertions of

6

attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Entries 1-7 and 15 in the log refer to multiple

7

documents or communications that span lengthy periods of time ranging from four months to over

8

two years, while entries 8-14 are listed as single communications that refer to “the above” subject

9

matter. None of these entries identifies any specific communication or even category of
communications with enough particularity for the Court to assess whether Mr. Song has made a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prima facie claim of privilege or work product, or how many documents or communications he

12

has withheld from production.
The Advisory Committee notes provide useful guidance about how a party should assert a

13
14

claim of privilege or protection, and the consequences for failing to do so:

15

A party must notify other parties if it is withholding materials
otherwise subject to disclosure under the rule or pursuant to a
discovery requests because it is asserting a claim of privilege or
work product protection. To withhold materials without such notice
is contrary to the rule, subjects the party to sanctions under Rule
37(b)(2), and may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or
protection.

16
17
18
19

The party must also provide sufficient information to enable other
parties to evaluate the applicability of the claimed privilege or
protection. Although the person from whom the discovery is sought
decides whether to claim a privilege or protection, the court
ultimately decides whether, if this claim is challenged, the privilege
or protection applies. Providing information pertinent to the
applicability of the privilege or protection should reduce the need
for in camera examination of the documents.

20
21
22
23

The rule does not attempt to define for each case what information
must be provided when a party asserts a claim of privilege or work
product protection. Details concerning time, persons, general
subject matter, etc., may be appropriate if only a few items are
withheld, but may be unduly burdensome when voluminous
documents are claimed to be privileged or protected, particularly if

24
25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Song also complains that the log contains no contact information for some of the authors and
recipients identified in the log, but Rule 26(b)(5) does not require disclosure of that information.
5

the items can be described by categories. A party can seek relief
through a protective order under subdivision (c) if compliance with
the requirement for providing this information would be an
unreasonable burden. In rare circumstances some of the pertinent
information affecting applicability of the claim, such as the identity
of the client, may itself be privileged; the rule provides that such
information need not be disclosed.

1
2
3
4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee note to 1980 amendment.
5
Here, Mr. Song has not provided a document-specific privilege log. He has not made any
6
showing that the documents in question are so voluminous that it would be unduly burdensome for
7
8

him to prepare such a log, nor has he demonstrated that any of the documents implicate the “rare
circumstance” where it is impossible for him to provide pertinent information without waiving the

9
privilege or protection claimed. As discussed below, Mr. Song elaborates on the basis for his
10
work product protection claims for entries 8-15 in the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, but he
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

provides no meaningful support for entries 1-7.
12
Mr. Song seems to suggest that he has no obligation to log or otherwise identify privileged
13
14
15
16

or protected materials consisting of “communications among the Plaintiff and counsel that postdated the initiation of litigation between the parties” and that such materials are “presumptively
privileged.” See id. at 6. While it is not uncommon for litigants to stipulate that neither party
must log the party’s communications with its own counsel of record in the litigation after the date

17
that litigation is initiated, it is unclear to the Court whether the parties had reached such agreement
18

or whether such agreement applies to any of the items on Mr. Song’s log. As not all

19
communications with counsel are privileged, Mr. Song must do more to support his claim.
20

Mr. Song’s privilege log does not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b)(5) as to any of the

21
entries in the log. However, as forth below, Mr. Song has made a sufficient showing in the joint
22
discovery dispute letter to support a claim for work product protection as to entries 8-15. He has
23
not made such a showing as to entries 1-7.
24
25

B.

Work Product Protection as to Buckles, Harris, and Moran

Mr. Drenberg argues that Mr. Song may not rely on the work product doctrine to shield his
26

counsel’s communications with Mr. Buckles, Ms. Harris, and Ms. Moran. Dkt. No. 67 at 4–5.

27
Mr. Song contends that his counsel communicated with Mr. Buckles and Ms. Moran to explore
28
6

1

their knowledge as potential witnesses in this case, and with Ms. Harris solely in her role as

2

assistant to Mr. Buckles for purposes of scheduling a meeting with Mr. Buckles. Id. at 6–8.
Mr. Song is correct that, absent a showing of substantial need, Mr. Drenberg is not entitled

3
4

to seek discovery from Mr. Song of his counsel’s communications with potential fact witnesses.

5

Hammett v. Am. Queen Steamboat Operating Co., LLC, No. 14-CV-2540-SHL/TMP, 2015 WL

6

12805697, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. July 17, 2015) (denying motion to compel interrogatory responses

7

seeking identities of witnesses interviewed by counsel because such disclosure would reveal

8

counsel’s litigation strategy); E.E.O.C. v. Collegeville/Imagineering Ent., No. CV05-3033

9

PHXDGC, 2007 WL 1089712, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 10, 2007) (same). Mr. Drenberg has not made
any showing of substantial need for counsel’s communications for use in this case, nor has he

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

established waiver simply by observing that the complaint refers to both Mr. Buckles’s and Ms.

12

Moran’s roles in the case. Of course, the attorney work product doctrine does not protect facts,

13

and Mr. Drenberg is free to take discovery of any fact witnesses he believes possess information

14

relevant to a claim or defense in the case.
The Court finds that, despite the inadequacy of his privilege log, Mr. Song has established

15
16

that the attorney work product protects the communications identified in entries 8-15 from

17

disclosure.

18

IV.

19

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court concludes that Mr. Song has not substantiated

20

his claims of attorney-client privilege or work product protection as entries 1-7 in his July 8, 2019

21

privilege log.

22

No later than October 21, 2019, Mr. Song must serve on Mr. Drenberg an amended

23

privilege log that identifies, with respect to entries 1-7, for each document or communication

24

withheld: (a) the attorney and client involved, (b) the nature of the document or communication,

25

(c) all persons or entities known to have received or sent the document or communication, or to

26

have been informed of its substance, (d) the date the document or communication was generated,

27

prepared, or dated, and (e) the document request or requests to which the document or

28

communication is responsive. Each item on the log must be separately numbered. Only
7

1

documents or communications responsive to a document request must be logged. Mr. Song may

2

not add any documents or communications to his privilege log that are not already encompassed

3

by entries 1-7 without leave of the Court.

4

If any disputes remain about Mr. Song’s assertions of privilege or work product, the parties

5

must confer about each disputed item before bringing any further disputes to the Court. If the

6

Court is asked to resolve any further disputes about privilege or work product, both parties will

7

have to do a much better job briefing the relevant issues. If necessary, they may seek relief from

8

the word limits set out in the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases by filing an administrative

9

motion specifying the relief they require.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2019

12
13
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8