Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC et al

Filing 96

DECLARATION of CLIFFORD C. WEBB In Support of Defendant Democratic Underground, LLC's First Motion to Compel the Production of Documents re 95 First MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents By Defendant Democratic Underground, LLC and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof ; filed by Defendants David Allen, Democratic Underground, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF)(Webb, Cliff)

EXHIBIT L

Jennifer Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Jennifer Johnson
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:34 PM
'Colby Williams'
Kurt Opsahl; Laurence Pulgram; Clifford Webb; Chad A. Bowers, Esq.;
[e-mail]
RE: Righthaven v. DU

Colby,  

Thank you for the supplemental responses.  We are still reviewing them.  As an initial matter, there are several 
documents that we expected to receive in this production that were not included, including for example:  
 the Operating Agreement referred to in the Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) and the other documents 
reflecting the integrated transaction for creation of SI Content Monitor and operations of Righthaven 
 documents relating to the formation of Righthaven beyond the ultimate SAA (emails, drafts, discussions of 
structure, etc.) 
 documents relating to the various elections and notices required by the SAA to be made by Stephens Media or 
Righthaven relating to the News Article, including, e.g., the Searching Decision, the Material Risk Conclusion, The 
Remediation Option Notice, the Assignment (documents apart from the form already supplied) 
 other documents showing the notification of search results and any communication about them that resulted in 
the actual decision to and act of assignment 

You stated that Stephens Media intends to produce documents on a rolling basis, but based on our conversation, this 
was to be for the documents (e.g. license agreement with Lexis) located in Arkansas that would take longer for Stephens 
Media to receive and review before producing.   It appears that some of the Arkansas documents were included in your 
production, which we appreciate.  Please let us know when we can expect to receive the above categories of 
documents, which should be available directly from Stephens Media and produced immediately.   

With respect to the privilege log, we agree that, at least at this point, the parties need not log any communications for 
the post‐complaint time period.  We understand that the communications exchanged between you and Righthaven’s 
counsel may have primarily occurred after the filing of the complaint; however, the privilege log must contain any other 
privileged communications in Stephens Media’s possession prior to your retention, including but not limited to any 
documents claimed to be privileged relating to  communications about the formation of Righthaven, the News Article at 
issue, and any and all communications responsive to the other discovery requests.  Under the Court’s scheduling order, 
these logs were ordered to be produced by February 8, i.e. 21 days after your objections/responses and documents 
were due (January 18) [Dkt. 54].  If these logs are not produced immediately, you will leave us with no option but to 
consider the privilege waived.     

Regards,  
Jennifer 

JENNIFER J. JOHNSON
Fenwick & West LLP
Associate, Litigation Group
[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]

1

From: Colby Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 5:15 PM
To: Jennifer Johnson; [e-mail]
Cc: Kurt Opsahl; Laurence Pulgram; Clifford Webb; Chad A. Bowers, Esq.
Subject: RE: Righthaven v. DU

Jennifer,
Per our previous discussions, attached is a copy of Stephens Media’s First Supplemental Responses to DU’s
First Set of RFPs. A copy has also been sent by regular mail. As part of the production, we have included a
non-privileged exchange of communications between Mark Hinueber and Joseph Chu at Righthaven regarding
a scheduling matter that occurred shortly after DU filed its counterclaim in this action. (The e-mail is redacted
to the extent Mark Hinueber forwarded it to our office in an attorney-client communication, which is reflected
on the privilege log included herewith). Once we were retained as counsel after the filing of the counterclaim,
there have been additional communications between Mr. Hinueber and our firm as well as between this firm and
Righthaven’s counsel. As I advised you, it is our position that we should not have to log those communications
on a privilege log given that, among other reasons, they are continuing in nature and will impose an undue
burden on the parties to continually update the privilege log every time they speak with their respective counsel
in written form (or, as the case may be, exchange communications protected by the common interest privilege).
You were going to check with your co-counsel to determine whether you agreed that the parties did not need to
include such communications on their privilege logs. Let me know your position on this issue at your
convenience.
Regards,
Colby
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
Campbell & Williams
700 South Seventh Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
email: [e-mail]

2