Light Guard Systems, Inc vs Spot Devices, Inc.

Filing 115

IT IS ORDERED that LightGuard and Spot shall file supplemental briefs on the following points as they pertain to the appropriate party (as specified herein, see pdf order for specifics ). FURTHER ORDERED that the LightGuard and Spot shall file simultaneous briefs on or before January 30, 2012. The Clerk of Court shall calendar this matter for a hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 1/18/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

LightGuard Systems, Inc., a California
Corporation

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Spot Devices, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, )
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 3:10-cv-00737-LHR (WGC)
ORDER

16

Before the court is LightGuard Systems, Inc.’s (“LightGuard”) Emergency Motion to Compel.

17

(Doc. # 74.)1 On December 5, 2011, a hearing was held on LightGuard’s motion. (Doc. # 91.) Both

18

LightGuard and Spot Devices, Inc. (“Spot”) were ordered to submit Amended Stipulated Scheduling

19

Orders listing the depositions to be rescheduled and identifying the specific topics on which witnesses

20

would be deposed. (Id.) In addition, LightGuard and Spot were ordered to file simultaneous briefs

21

addressing Spot’s claim of inadvertently producing certain documents and the alleged applicability of

22

the attorney-client privilege. (Id.) On December 30, 2011, LightGuard and Spot filed simultaneous

23

briefs (Doc. # 107 and # 109, respectively).

24

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the court now believes additional briefing on certain matters

25

would be of assistance to the court. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that LightGuard and Spot shall file

26

supplemental briefs on the following points as they pertain to the appropriate party:

27

First, Spot shall clarify whether it considers all or part of Exhibit A protected by the attorney-

28
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

client privilege. If it considers all of Exhibit A protected by the attorney-client privilege, it shall

2

explain how Exhibit A qualifies as “a communication” for purposes of the attorney-client privilege.

3

If, however, Spot considers only part of Exhibit A protected, it shall identify which statements it

4

considers privileged and explain the legal and factual basis on which the claim of privilege is

5

predicated.

6

Second, Spot shall clarify whether it has abandoned the argument, asserted in a November 2,

7

2011, email (Doc. # 111-1 at 1) from Palani Rathinasamy to Adam McMillen, that Exhibit A is

8

protected by the work product doctrine. If Spot has not abandoned the argument, then it shall explain

9

how Exhibit A was created in anticipation of litigation and why the work product doctrine applies to

10

Exhibit A.

11

Third, Spot shall explain why Exhibit N satisfies the requirements governing the applicability

12

of the attorney-client privilege to privilege logs as discussed in Dole v. Milonas, 889 F.2d 885, 888

13

n. 3, 890 (9th Cir. 1989).

14

Fourth, assuming Exhibit A is “a communication,” LightGuard shall clarify its argument (Doc.

15

# 107 at 8:3-4) that Exhibit A’s use in developing a “freedom to operate” plan (“FTO”) by Spot and

16

Spot’s counsel, Seed IP, precludes Exhibit A from falling under the attorney-client privilege.

17
18

Fifth, LightGuard shall respond to Spot’s argument (Doc. # 109 at 4, 7) that the (1) joint client
and (2) functional employee doctrines shield Exhibit A from waiver.

19

Sixth, both LightGuard and Spot shall explain and clarify the nature of their “agreement,” if

20

any, concerning Exhibits B-L, as referenced in Spot’s Opposition to LightGuard Systems’ Omnibus

21

Motion (Doc. # 109 at 8:18-24.)

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LightGuard and Spot shall file simultaneous briefs on

23

or before January 30, 2012. The Clerk of Court shall calendar this matter for a hearing.

24

/// /// ///

25

/// /// ///

26

/// /// ///

27

/// /// ///

28

/// /// ///
2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED: January 18, 2012

3
4
5

_____________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3