Skyline Steel, L.L.C. v. Pilepro, L.L.C.
Filing
393
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: In light of the foregoing, Skyline's motion to reopen discovery on a limited basis is GRANTED. Specifically, the Court will reopen fact discovery for the limited purpose of discovery relating to PilePro's communications with counsel concerning the '543 Patent. Such discovery shall be limited to no more than two depositions and a limited number of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents to be agreed upon by the parties. (If, after meeting and conferring in good faith, the parties cannot agree on the number of interrogatories and requests for production, they shall bring their dispute to the Court's attention no later than August 5, 2015.) All fact discov ery shall be completed by September 2, 2015. Skyline is reminded that any discovery requests must be limited to information that is otherwise discoverable and relevant to the few claims remaining in this case. Further, any motions for summary j udgment - or, in the event no motion is filed, the parties' pretrial submissions - shall be filed no later than thirty days after the extended close of fact discovery. The parties are advised to consult the Court's Individual Rules an d Practices in Civil Cases for information on the format and substance of required pretrial submissions. Finally, PilePro and Skyline submitted many documents connected to Skyline's application in redacted form or under seal. Any party wi shing to keep any of those documents sealed or redacted shall file a letter brief, not to exceed five pages and no later than August 5, 2015, addressing the propriety of sealing or redacting the relevant documents in light of the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/22/2015) (tn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
SKYLINE STEEL, LLC,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
PILEPRO, LLC,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
07/22/2015
13-CV-8171 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
In this contentious patent litigation, Plaintiff Skyline Steel, LLC (“Skyline”) asserts that
Defendant PilePro, LLC (“PilePro”) waived attorney-client privilege at the eleventh hour of
discovery when, among other things, defense counsel elicited communications regarding a
former PilePro employee’s conversations with former counsel at the employee’s deposition. On
that basis, Skyline moves to reopen discovery for a limited time. For the reasons that follow,
Skyline’s motion is granted and discovery is reopened on a limited basis.
The parties’ dispute regarding the attorney-client privilege arises in the context of
ongoing patent litigation before this Court, general familiarity with which is assumed. To the
extent relevant here, Skyline’s suit challenges several actions taken by PilePro related to a patent
PilePro owns (the “’543 Patent”), including its accusations that Skyline infringed the ’543 Patent
through its distribution of other products (known as the “HZM System”). See generally Skyline
Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 13-CV-8171 (JMF), 2015 WL 1881114, at
*1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2015) (“Skyline Summ. J. Op.”). The Court has already held that
PilePro waived its attorney-client privilege with respect to a German patent obtained by PilePro
— one analogous to the ’543 Patent and referred to at various points as part of the “’543 Patent
family.” See Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, No. 13-CV-8171 (JMF), 2015 WL 556545, at
*4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (“Skyline Privilege Op.”).
On April 13, 2015, Skyline filed a letter arguing that, based on recent actions, PilePro had
waived attorney-client privilege not just with respect to the prosecution and enforcement of its
German patent, but also with respect to the prosecution and enforcement of the ’543 Patent itself.
Most significantly, Skyline noted that in a deposition of former PilePro employee Gerry
McShane, counsel for PilePro elicited attorney-client communications regarding the ’543 Patent
by, inter alia, asking McShane about his conversations with PilePro’s former counsel before and
after PilePro sent letters to its current and potential customers warning that the HZM System
infringed the ’543 Patent (“the Infringement Letters”). (Docket No. 285 (“Skyline’s Apr. 13
Ltr.”) at 1-2). Skyline asserted that PilePro had similarly waived its attorney-client privilege
with respect to the ’543 Patent in its then-recent responses to Skyline’s contention
interrogatories, in which PilePro indicated that (1) it had relied on “numerous discussions” with
Frank Meier, its German patent counsel, in determining that the ’543 Patent was substantially
similar to its German patent, and (2) had consulted with Meier and other German counsel, along
with previous counsel in this action, Douglas Mitchell and Dwight Williams, before sending out
the Infringement Letters. (Skyline’s Apr. 13 Ltr. at 3; id., Ex. 4 at 11-13). After ruling on
Skyline’s motion for summary judgment and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, the Court
granted both parties an opportunity to file supplemental submissions, which the Court has
considered in ruling on Skyline’s argument for waiver. (Docket Nos. 366, 371)
It is well established that “the attorney-client privilege cannot at once be used as a shield
and a sword.” United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, “a
2
waiver [of the privilege] may be implied in circumstances where it is called for in the interests of
fairness.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008). The “quintessential example” of such a
waiver arises when a defendant “asserts an advice-of-counsel defense and is thereby deemed to
have waived his attorney-client privilege with respect to the advice that he received.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 1987)
(“It has been established law for a hundred years that when the client waives the privilege by
testifying about what transpired between her and her attorney, she cannot thereafter insist that the
mouth of the attorney be shut.”). An implied waiver also occurs when “a party uses an assertion
of fact to influence the decisionmaker while denying its adversary access to privileged material
potentially capable of rebutting the assertion,” In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), including where a party “makes factual assertions, the
truthfulness of which may be assessed only by an examination of the privileged communications
or documents,” In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 233 F.R.D. 400, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). And an express waiver will be found where “the holder of
the privilege discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of a privileged
communication to a third party or stranger to the attorney-client relationship.” Weizmann Inst. of
Sci. v. Neschis, No. 00-CV-7850 (RMB), 2004 WL 540480, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2004).
Once waiver is found, “[t]he widely applied standard for determining the scope of a waiver is
that the waiver applies to all other communications relating to the same subject matter.” In re
Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying those standards here, the Court finds that PilePro waived its attorney-client
privilege with respect to communications regarding the scope of the ’543 Patent. Most
significantly, putting aside the voluntary admissions by McShane (who, PilePro asserts, is a
3
“disgruntled ex-employee” with his “own agenda” (Docket No. 289 (“PilePro’s Apr. 15 Ltr.”) 1,
3)), PilePro, through its own counsel, elicited testimony from McShane regarding conversations
he had had with counsel prior to sending out the Infringement Letters (see Skyline’s Apr. 13 Ltr.
at 1-3). That is plainly a waiver. See Inventio Ag v. Otis Elevator Co., No. 06-CV-5377 (CM),
2011 WL 3359705, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2011) (noting that the defendant would waive its
attorney-client privilege if it elicited testimony concerning “legal advice about the risk of
infringement and the validity of the patent”). That PilePro, in its latest submission (Docket No.
366 (“PilePro’s Suppl. Ltr.”)), claims that it does not intend to assert a formal advice-of-counsel
defense is of no moment. For one thing, it has repeatedly referenced conversations with counsel
in explaining the basis for its infringement accusations — including in opposing Skyline’s
summary judgment motion, when it argued that its accusations of infringement against Skyline
were grounded in a good-faith belief that the HZM System infringed the ’543 Patent. (See
PilePro’s Apr. 15 Ltr., Ex. 5 at 4-5 (excerpting sections of PilePro’s memorandum in opposition
to Skyline’s motion)). 1 For another, a party need not explicitly invoke an advice of counsel
1
PilePro argues that Skyline’s arguments for waiver are “an attempt to recast information
that Skyline has had for months” and that, “[i]f Skyline thought there were waivers of attorneyclient privilege based on such disclosures, Skyline could and should have raised them before fact
discovery closed.” (PilePro’s Apr. 15 Ltr. 1). Although some of Skyline’s arguments rest on
disclosures (such as general references to conversations with counsel) that are similar to those
made earlier in the litigation, PilePro repeatedly blocked testimony regarding the substance of
conversations with counsel regarding the ‘543 Patent and its infringement — a course of action
that PilePro reversed just before the close of discovery, when PilePro itself elicited that type of
testimony. (Compare PilePro’s Apr. 15 Ltr., Ex. 4 at 200-01, 203-04 (objecting to questions on
the grounds of attorney-client privilege); with Skyline’s Apr. 13 Ltr., Ex. 1 at 292-93 (asking
McShane about conversations with counsel about allegations of infringement)). Accordingly,
the Court finds that Skyline has demonstrated the “good cause” required to reopen discovery.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Moreover, while a party’s delay in asserting the attorney-client
privilege may forfeit a later-raised claim of privilege, see, e.g., Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., No.
11-CV-0160 (JMO) (THK), 2012 WL 651536, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012), PilePro does not
cite any authority for a converse proposition — that by failing to timely raise waiver of the
privilege, a party may forfeit its right to claim waiver in the future.
4
defense in order for a court to find waiver. See, e.g., Johnson Matthey, Inc. v. Research Corp.,
No. 01-CV-8115 (MBM) (FM), 2002 WL 1728566, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2002) (“[E]ven if
the privilege holder does not attempt to make use of the privileged communication, he may
waive the privilege if he makes factual assertions the truth of which can only be assessed by
examination of the privileged communication.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
At bottom, given that Skyline must prove that PilePro acted in bad faith with respect to
the accusing activities remaining in this case — a claim that PilePro has both indirectly and
directly sought to refute by referring to conversations with counsel — PilePro’s actions,
particularly its decision to elicit the substance of specific conversations that a former PilePro
employee had with counsel, compel a finding of waiver here. Put simply, PilePro “may not
assert that it believed its conduct was lawful, and simultaneously claim privilege to block inquiry
into the basis for the party’s state of mind or belief.” Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, No.
06-CV-5936 (KMW), 2011 WL 1642434, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2011). Nor can it “be
permitted, on the one hand, to argue that it acted in good faith and without an improper motive
and then, on the other hand, to deny [Skyline] access to the advice given by counsel where that
advice . . . played a substantial and significant role in formulating [its] actions.” Pereira v.
United Jersey Bank, No. 94-CV-1565 (LAP), 1997 WL 773716, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 1997);
see also, e.g., Garfinkle v. Arcata Nat’l Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (noting that
attorney-client privilege “may be waived if the privileged communication is injected as an issue
in the case by the party which enjoys its protection”); see generally In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Whether fairness requires disclosure has been
decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis, and depends primarily on the specific context in
which the privilege is asserted.”). Accordingly, PilePro may not attempt to block disclosure of
5
communications with counsel regarding the scope of the ’543 Patent — more specifically, what
the patent did and did not cover and whether or not Skyline, through the HZM System or
otherwise, was infringing — on the grounds of privilege.
In light of the foregoing, Skyline’s motion to reopen discovery on a limited basis is
GRANTED. Specifically, the Court will reopen fact discovery for the limited purpose of
discovery relating to PilePro’s communications with counsel concerning the ’543 Patent. Such
discovery shall be limited to no more than two depositions and a limited number of
interrogatories and requests for the production of documents to be agreed upon by the parties.
(If, after meeting and conferring in good faith, the parties cannot agree on the number of
interrogatories and requests for production, they shall bring their dispute to the Court’s attention
no later than August 5, 2015.) All fact discovery shall be completed by September 2, 2015.
Skyline is reminded that any discovery requests must be limited to information that is otherwise
discoverable and relevant to the few claims remaining in this case.
Further, any motions for summary judgment — or, in the event no motion is filed, the
parties’ pretrial submissions — shall be filed no later than thirty days after the extended close of
fact discovery. The parties are advised to consult the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in
Civil Cases for information on the format and substance of required pretrial submissions.
6
Finally, PilePro and Skyline submitted many documents connected to Skyline’s
application in redacted form or under seal. Any party wishing to keep any of those documents
sealed or redacted shall file a letter brief, not to exceed five pages and no later than August 5,
2015, addressing the propriety of sealing or redacting the relevant documents in light of the
presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006).
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 22, 2015
New York, New York
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?