Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLC et al

Filing 151

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 123 Joint MOTION for Discovery Regarding Documents Listed in Obesity Research's Privilege Log by Fiber Research International, LLC. Any further production required pursuant to the attached Order must be served within 14 days, absent further Order of the Court or agreement of the parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 3/11/16. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

OBESITY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIBER RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO
DETERMINE DISCOVERY
DISPUTE: DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
IDENTIFIED AS PRIVILEGED IN
PLAINTIFF’S PRIVILEGE LOG

17
18
19

[ECF NO. 123]
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Determine a Discovery Dispute,

20

filed on February 26, 2016, containing Defendant’s motion to compel

21

production of certain documents identified as privileged or as protected work

22

product in Plaintiff’s privilege log. (ECF No. 123). Defendant claims that

23

service of the privilege log was so untimely that any privilege or protection

24

has been waived and that, in any event, the assertion of privilege or

25

protection regarding 31 of the communications is improper. (Id. *1-12).

26

Plaintiff counters that service of the privilege log was not untimely and the
1
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

privileges and protections asserted are appropriate. (Id. *12-24).

2

LEGAL STANDARD

3

The Ninth Circuit consistently has described the attorney-client

4

privilege as protecting communications: (a) where legal advice of any kind is

5

sought; (b) from a professional legal advisor in his capacity as such; (c)

6

relating to that purpose; (d) made in confidence; (e) by the client; (f) that are

7

at the client=s insistence permanently protected; (g) from disclosure by

8

himself or the legal advisor; (h) unless the protection be waived. United

9

States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin,

10
11
12
13
14

278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002). The party asserting the privilege has the
burden of establishing all of its elements and, even if established, the
privilege is strictly construed. Id. at 999-1000.
Apart from the attorney-client privilege, documents may be protected
from discovery if the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation or
for trial by or for another party or its representative, including the party’s

15

attorney, consultant or agent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). This work-

16

product protection is not absolute and may be overcome. See Rule

17

26(b)(3)(A)(i)-(ii). Also, “[b]ecause the work product doctrine is intended only

18

to guard against the divulging of attorney’s strategies and legal impressions,

19

it does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or facts

20

contained within the work product.” Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214 F.R.D.

21

587, 591 (S.D. Cal. 2003).

22
23
24
25
26

ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Court declines to find that Plaintiff has waived
any claim of privilege or protection due to the alleged untimeliness of the
service of Plaintiff’s privilege log. Although Plaintiff could have moved with
greater dispatch, considering the factors identified in Burlington Northern &

2
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

Santa Fe Railway, Co., v. United States District Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149

2

(9th Cir. 2005), and applying them in “context of a holistic reasonableness

3

analysis,” the Court finds that Defendant has not been deprived of a

4

meaningful opportunity to address Plaintiff’s assertions of privilege and

5

protection.

6
7

1. Log Entries 1-14, 73, and 76-79 (ECF No. 123-3)
Plaintiff seeks to protect the communications referenced in these log

8

entries as work product and under the common interest doctrine. The

9

common interest doctrine is not a privilege. It is an exception to the rule on

10

waiver where communications are disclosed to third parties. Nidec v. Victor

11

Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 2007). For the anti-waiver

12

protection of the common interest doctrine to apply: 1) the communication is

13

made by separate parties in the course of a matter of common legal interest;

14

2) the communication is designed to further that effort; and, 3) the privilege

15

has not been waived. Id. The common interest must be a legal, as opposed to

16

a commercial interest. Id.

17

The communications at issue pertain to the retention of ABC

18

Laboratories to conduct testing of certain products in connection with this

19

litigation. See Declaration of Brian Salerno, ECF No. 123-16 ¶10;

20

Declaration of Allison Borts, ECF No. 123-17 ¶¶13-15. The common interest

21

issue pertains to Mr. Salerno and his company, Nutralliance, Inc. According

22

to Mr. Salerno, Nutralliance supplies the raw material ingredients used in

23

Plaintiff’s Lipozene product to other companies that manufacture and bottle

24

the Lipozene product ultimately sold by Plaintiff. Declaration of Brian

25

Salerno, ECF No. 123-16 ¶3. Neither Nutralliance nor Mr. Salerno are

26

parties to this instant litigation and their legal, as opposed to commercial,
3
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

interest in the outcome of this litigation is unclear. Accordingly, the Court

2

declines to extend the common interest doctrine to Mr. Salerno and

3

Nutralliance, Inc.

4

On the other hand, it is clear that Mr. Salerno was tasked by Ms. Borts,

5

in around November 2015, to have certain tests performed in connection with

6

this litigation. See Declaration of Brian Salerno, ECF No. 123-16 ¶10;

7

Declaration of Allison Borts, ECF No. 123-17 ¶¶13-15. Ms. Borts works at

8

Continuity Products, LLC which, pursuant to an agreement with Plaintiff,

9

provides accounting, payroll, human resources, legal and marketing services

10

to Plaintiff. Pursuant to that agreement, Ms. Borts serves as in-house

11

counsel for Plaintiff. Declaration of Allison Borts, ECF No. 123-17 ¶¶3, 9.

12

Mr. Salerno, in turn, retained the services of ABC Laboratories. Salerno

13

Declaration, ECF No. 123-16 ¶10. The communications referenced in log

14

entries 1-14, 73, and 76-79 are protected by the work product doctrine but

15

only to the extent that disclosure would divulge the strategies and legal

16

impressions of Ms. Borts.

17

Unless they already have done so, Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce to

18

Defendant redacted versions of the communications referenced at log entries

19

1-14, 73, and 76-79. Plaintiff may redact passages that divulge the strategies

20

and legal impressions of Ms. Borts.

21
22

2. Log Entries 36, 39, 40 and 63 (ECF No. 123-3)
These documents are identified as communications between Mr.

23

Salerno and Josh Weiss, who preceded Ms. Borts as counsel for Plaintiff. See

24

Borts Declaration ECF No. 123-17 ¶9. Item 40 is identified as a

25

communication between Mr. Salerno and one of his employees, April Martin.

26

The communications occurred in March and April, 2015, shortly after the
4
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

filing of the instant lawsuit but prior to Mr. Salerno being specifically tasked

2

by counsel to obtain lab testing of certain materials. The declarations of Mr.

3

Salerno and Ms. Borts reflect no specific tasks assigned to Mr. Salerno until

4

approximately November 2015 when he was asked to arrange for lab testing.

5

Salerno Declaration, ECF No. 123-16 ¶10. Although Mr. Salerno and Ms.

6

Borts state that Mr. Salerno had communications with Mr. Weiss regarding

7

this litigation prior to November, those assertions are unacceptably general

8

to protect communications with a purported consultant. See Borts

9

Declaration ECF No. 123-17 ¶13; Salerno Declaration, ECF No. 123-16 ¶9.

10

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not sustained its burden that these

11

communications are protected work product. Ms. Borts asserts, however,

12

that the communications are nonetheless privileged or protected under the

13

common interest doctrine or on the grounds that Mr. Salerno was a

14

“functional employee” of Plaintiff.

15

The Court has rejected the notion that Nutralliance, Inc., Mr. Salerno’s

16

company, which supplies raw materials to other companies that manufacture

17

Plaintiff’s product, and Mr. Salerno, have a common legal interest with

18

Plaintiff. Plaintiff suggests, as an alternative, that Mr. Salerno is a

19

functional employee of Plaintiff. Borts Declaration, ECF No. 123-17 ¶12. See

20

United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2010).

21

As noted above, Mr. Salerno owns Nutralliance, Inc., which supplies

22

raw material to others to manufacture and bottle Plaintiff’s Lipozene

23

product. He appears to have his own offices and, while understandably

24

interested in the growth of Plaintiff’s business, he does not have any of the

25

trappings of an employee. Comparing Mr. Salerno with Mr. Graf makes the

26

point. Mr. Graf communicated with insurance brokers and others on behalf
5
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

of his putative employer, marketed the company’s insurance plans, managed

2

its employees, and was the company’s voice in its communications with

3

counsel. Id. at 1157. Mr. Salerno has his own business supplying raw

4

material for use in Plaintiff’s product. There is no allegation that he has

5

acted on behalf of Plaintiff except, as discussed above, as a consultant in

6

connection with obtaining lab tests. The Court is not convinced that he is a

7

functional employee of Plaintiff.

8
9
10
11
12

Accordingly, the Court finds that the communications identified at log
entries 36, 39, 40 and 63 are not privileged nor protected and must be
disclosed.
3. Log Entries 43 and 82 (ECF No. 123-3)
These documents are identified as privileged communications between

13

Henny den Ujil and Josh Weiss. As stated above, Mr. Weiss was the

14

predecessor to Ms. Borts as in-house counsel for Plaintiff. Mr. den Ujil is

15

identified as the sole manager of Plaintiff. Borts Declaration, ECF No. 123-

16

17 ¶5. Plaintiff’s assertion of privilege regarding these documents appears

17

proper.

18
19

4. Log Entries 44-45 (ECF No. 123-3)
These documents, dated August 16, 2012, are identified as

20

communications between Jim Ayres and Josh Weiss and either privileged,

21

protected or non-waiver. The Court finds that Mr. Ayres is a functional

22

employee of Plaintiff and the communications at issue are properly claimed

23

as privileged. See Declaration of James Ayres, ECF No. 123-15 ¶10.

24
25
26

5. Log Entries 75, 80 and 81 (ECF No. 123-3)
These documents are identified as communications between Ms. Borts
and Katie Crowell, identified as an inventory logistics manager at Continuity
6
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

Products, LLC, which provides a variety of services, pursuant to a

2

management agreement, to Plaintiff. Borts Declaration, ECF No. 123-17 ¶3.

3

It appears from the description of the communications that Ms. Borts tasked

4

Ms. Crowell with some litigation-related work. Ms. Borts’ Declaration,

5

however, does not identify the nature of the task assigned to Ms. Crowell and

6

no declaration from Ms. Crowell was filed. Despite that oversight, the Court

7

will treat these communications as containing attorney work product.

8

Accordingly, unless they already have done so, Plaintiff is ORDERED to

9

produce to Defendant redacted versions of the communications referenced at

10

log entries 75, 80 and 81. Plaintiff may redact passages that divulge the

11

strategies and legal impressions of Ms. Borts.

12
13

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses, as

14

presented in the instant joint motion, is GRANTED IN PART AND

15

DENIED IN PART. To the extent that the Court has ordered further

16

production, those documents must be provided to Plaintiff within 14 days of

17

the date of this Order.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11,, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD