Laatz et al v. Zazzle, Inc. et al

Filing 277

ORDER Following Review of In Camera Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 8/28/2024. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

NICKY LAATZ,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER FOLLOWING REVIEW OF IN
CAMERA DOCUMENTS

v.

10
11

Case No. 22-cv-04844-BLF (VKD)

ZAZZLE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

As directed by the Court, on August 22, 2024 Zazzle submitted for in camera review the

14
15

14 documents identified in the Court’s August 15, 2024 order. See Dkt. No. 256. Having

16

reviewed these documents, the Court concludes that some of Zazzle’s privilege claims are not

17

supported by its privilege log or its prior briefing. See Dkt. No. 236. Rather, these redactions

18

have been applied to factual statements and/or to communications that have only a business

19

purpose, and none of them seek or reveal legal advice. Other privilege claims are valid and

20

supported. The Court finds no evidence supporting Ms. Laatz’s contention that the crime-fraud

21

exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to any of the redacted or withheld documents.
The Court summarizes its specific findings below:

22
23

Log No.

Bates Number

Privilege Claim

1

ZAZZLE-003054

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing

Privilege Applies?

24
25
26
27
28

B. Beaver email (5/4/17,
2:52 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

1

M. Alkhatib email
(5/4/17 @ 2:50 p.m.)

No

B. Beaver email (5/4/17
@ 2:44 p.m.)

No

M. Alkhatib email
(5/4/17 @ 2:43 p.m.)

No

L. Larson email (5/4/17
@ 2:40 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

B. Beaver email (5/4/17
@ 14:37)

Yes – redaction ok

M. McGhie email (5/3/17
@ 12:43 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

4

ZAZZLE-003065

12
13
14
15
16
17

5

K. Liu email (1/18/17 @
12:11:26 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

C. Sheu email (11/9/16
@ 5:33 p.m.)

Yes – first redaction ok
No – second redaction

ZAZZLE-003068

18
19
20

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing

B. Beaver email (11/9/16
@ 11:33:40 a.m.

No

C. Sheu email (11/8/16
@ 3:19 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

21
22
23

181

ZAZZLE-003230

24
25
26
27
28

Attachment. Email thread
reflecting and/or seeking the
legal advice of counsel
regarding font licensing

L. Larson email (5/4/17
@ 12:02 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

K. Liu email (5/4/17 @

Yes – redaction ok
2

15:17)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

I. Pashchenko (5/4/17 @
2:48 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

M. Alkhatib email
(5/4/17 @ 2:42 p.m.)

No

L. Larson email (5/4/17
@ 2:40 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

B. Beaver email (5/4/17
@ 14:37)

Yes – redaction ok

M. McGhie email (5/3/17
@ 12:43 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

8
9
10

ZAZZLE-004335

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing

254

ZAZZLE-003391

Email reflecting and/or seeking No
the legal advice of counsel in
response to the threat of
litigation from Laatz

260

ZAZZLE-003525

Email reflecting and/or seeking No
the legal advice of counsel in
response to the threat of
litigation from Laatz

270

ZAZZLE-003651

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing and in response to the
threat of litigation from Laatz

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Yes – redaction ok

240

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M. McGhie email
(8/26/20 @ 2:47:09 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

L. Larson email (5/4/17
@ 12:02 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

K. Liu email (5/4/17 @
15:17)

Yes – redaction ok

I. Pashchenko (5/4/17 @
2:48 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

3

1

M. Alkhatib email
(5/4/17 @ 2:42 p.m.)

No

L. Larson email (5/4/17
@ 2:40 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

B. Beaver email (5/4/17
@ 14:37)

Yes – redaction ok

M. McGhie email (5/3/17
@ 12:43 p.m.)

Yes – redaction ok

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

271

ZAZZLE-003657

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

272

ZAZZLE-003661

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing

Yes – withholding ok

273

ZAZZLE-003662

Attachment. Document
reflecting mental impressions
and/or legal conclusions of
counsel regarding font
licensing

Yes – redaction ok

462

ZAZZLE-003959

Messages reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel in response to the
threat of litigation from Laatz

No

611

ZAZZLE-004068

Messages reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel in response to the
threat of litigation from Laatz

Yes – redaction ok

663

ZAZZLE-004537

Document reflecting the legal
advice of counsel regarding
font licensing

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Yes – first redaction ok
No – second redaction

C. Sheu email (11/9/16
@ 5:33 p.m.)

11
12

Email thread reflecting and/or
seeking the legal advice of
counsel regarding font
licensing

Yes – redaction ok

New Fonts (Sept 2017)
table, col. G & note to
cell A106

28
4

1

Final Purchasing List
table, cell D4

No

Final Purchasing List
table, cols. E, M

Yes – redaction ok

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Because the Court has found no evidence that the crime-fraud exception to the attorneyclient privilege applies to any of the redacted or withheld documents reviewed in camera, an
evidentiary hearing on that issue is unnecessary. See In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 479
F.3d 1078, 1093 (9th Cir. 2007) (party seeking to preserve privilege has right to introduce
countervailing evidence following in camera review before court orders disclosure based on
application of crime-fraud exception). Otherwise, the Court has already afforded Zazzle an
opportunity to elaborate upon and file declarations in support of its privilege claims, and the Court
has considered that material in making the determinations summarized above. See Dkt. Nos. 236,
236-1, and supporting exhibits.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that no further proceedings are necessary to resolve the
parties’ dispute regarding these 14 privilege log entries. Zazzle shall produce to Ms. Laatz the
documents corresponding to Entries 1, 4, 5, 181, 254, 260, 270, 271, 462 and 663, with revised
redactions conforming to the Court’s determinations regarding application of the privilege, no
later than September 11, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2024

20
21
22

Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
5