Garner et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 269

ORDER granting plaintiffs' 232 Motion for in camera review of a sampling of the clawed back documents. Amazon shall, within seven days of the date of this order, deliver to the Clerk's Office a sealed and appropriately labeled envelope or box containing the first two documents listed on each page of the amended claw back list (Dkt. # 235 -4, Exhibit 4 to the Cohen Declaration), along with the associated privilege log entries. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

KAELI GARNER, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

12

Cause No. C21-0750RSL
ORDER DIRECTING
SUBMISSION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion for in Camera Review of

15
16

Documents Clawed Back Out of Time.” Dkt. # 232. Having reviewed the memoranda,

17 declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, 1 the Court finds as follows:
18

Plaintiffs have presented evidence that supports a good faith belief that in camera review

19
20

of the clawed back documents will reveal that at least some of them were improperly withheld.

21 First, prior to receiving Amazon’s notice that privileged documents had been inadvertently
22

produced, plaintiffs’ attorneys reviewed and coded approximately 500 of the clawed back

23
23

documents (over one-third of the documents at issue) without noticing anything that might be

25
26
27

1

This matter can be decided on the papers submitted. Amazon’s request for oral argument is
DENIED.

28
ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW - 1

1 privileged or otherwise protected. While Amazon argues that this fact is of marginal relevance
2

because plaintiffs’ counsel are unfamiliar with Amazon’s use of its legal department and cannot

3
4

adequately investigate assertions of privilege, indicia of protected documents are often apparent

5 on their face insofar as they reveal legal advice, reflect communications with counsel, and/or
6

were generated in anticipation of litigation. Counsel’s inability to recognize any such indicia

7
8

when reviewing over a third of the documents at issue suggests that many of the clawed back

9 documents have been improperly withheld. Second, plaintiffs provided evidence that Amazon’s
10

internal policies encouraged labeling anything related to “privacy” as privileged and

11
12

confidential, regardless of any attorney involvement. Such over designation may, as Amazon

13 argues, be a prudent business practice to ensure that advice of counsel is not accidentally
14

disclosed, but it also has the effect of hiding all documents related to a topic rather than only

15
16

those that reflect communications with counsel regarding that topic. These facts support a

17 reasonable, good faith belief that in camera inspection will reveal information or whole
18

documents that are not privileged.2

19
20
21
22
23
23

2

Amazon asserts that its outside counsel did not rely on the labels affixed by employees when
conducting
the privilege review in this case and, in fact, that it has produced some documents that bear
25
“privileged and confidential” markings. Given that Amazon acknowledges the over use of the privilege
26 label and that plaintiffs’ counsel were unable to recognize any potential privilege issues in over a third
of the documents at issue, an in camera review is necessary to determine how independent (and
27
accurate) outside counsel’s review was.

28
ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW - 2

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for in camera review of a sampling of
the clawed back documents (Dkt. # 232) is GRANTED. Amazon shall, within seven days of the

3
4

date of this order, deliver to the Clerk’s Office a sealed and appropriately labeled envelope or

5 box containing the first two documents listed on each page of the amended claw back list (Dkt.
6

# 235-4, Exhibit 4 to the Cohen Declaration), along with the associated privilege log entries.

7
8
9

Dated this 8th day of July, 2024.

10
11
12

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
28
ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW - 3