Tribuo Partners LLC v. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, P.C.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 23, 2023
Docket3:22-cv-02930
StatusUnknown

This text of Tribuo Partners LLC v. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, P.C. (Tribuo Partners LLC v. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tribuo Partners LLC v. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, P.C., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TRIBUO PARTNERS LLC, 7 Case No. 22-cv-02930-TLT (DMR) Plaintiff, 8 NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND v. ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 9 PROCEDURES; ORDER DENYING WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI, 10 P.C., JOINT LETTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 47

12 The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 13 all discovery matters, including the parties’ joint discovery letter. [Docket Nos. 47, 48.] This 14 matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 15 In the joint letter, Plaintiff Tribuo Partners LLC moves to compel Defendant Wilson 16 Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, P.C., to produce a privilege log for communications with Defendant’s 17 Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) to enable Plaintiff “to vet Defendants’ privilege claims.” Jt. 18 Letter 1. Defendant describes these communications as “relating to the lateral transition of 19 attorney Lyons, and similar post-claim communications”; asserts that the communications are 20 clearly privileged under applicable California law; and offers to “provide[ ] a declaration from the 21 OGC setting forth additional factual bas[e]s for assertion of privilege.” Id. at 3-4 (citing Edwards 22 Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Ct., 231 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1235-36 (2014) (discussing factors 23 that a court may consider in analyzing whether an attorney-client relationship exists between a law 24 firm’s attorneys and the firm’s in-house counsel)). Defendant also asserts that the 25 communications “are not even relevant to [Plaintiff’s] theories in this case.” Jt. Letter 4. 26 In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[w]hen a party 27 withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged . . . 1 the party must . . . describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not 2 produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged 3 or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). “The most 4 common way to do this is with a privilege log.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 306 F.R.D. 5 234, 237 (N.D. Cal. 2015). However, the Ninth Circuit has not explicitly held that a privilege log 6 is necessary to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)’s notice requirement, see Burlington N. & 7 Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005), and 8 district courts have discretion to “adopt the ‘privilege log’ approach.” See Brooks v. Agate Res., 9 Inc., 836 F. App'x 471, 474 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Dole v. Milonas, 889 F.2d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 10 1989)). In any event, “boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 11 34 request for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.” Burlington, 408 12 F.3d at 1149. 13 Within seven days of the date of this order, Defendant shall provide a sworn declaration 14 from an individual with personal knowledge within its OGC regarding the factual bases for 15 Defendant’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege over the communications at issue. The 16 declaration should address the general subject matter of the communications to enable Plaintiff to 17 assess the relevance of the communications and confirm Defendant’s assertion that they are not 18 relevant. After production of the declaration, the parties shall immediately meet and confer. If 19 disagreements remain after meeting and conferring, the parties shall submit a joint letter in 20 accordance with the procedures in this order and shall submit Defendant’s declaration as an 21 attachment to the letter. The joint letter is denied without prejudice. 22 Going forward, the parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal 23 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, 24 and Standing Orders. Local rules, general orders, standing orders, and instructions for using the 25 Court's Electronic Case Filing system are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. Failure to 26 comply may result in sanctions. 27 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES 1 the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. 2 Instead, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to 3 resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person, by video, or by 4 telephone, and may not be conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the 5 parties shall file a joint letter no later than five business days after the meet and confer session, 6 unless otherwise directed by the court. Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter, 7 which shall include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in person, by video, or by 8 telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter. The letter must also include a paragraph 9 listing relevant case management deadlines, including (1) the fact and expert discovery cut-off 10 dates; (2) the last day to hear or file dispositive motions; (3) claim construction or class 11 certification briefing deadlines and hearing dates; and (4) pretrial conference and trial dates. 12 Going issue-by-issue, the joint letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s 13 position with appropriate legal authority, and provide each party’s final proposed compromise 14 before moving to the next issue. The joint letter shall not exceed five pages (12-point font or 15 greater; margins no less than one inch) without leave of court. Parties are expected to plan for 16 and cooperate in preparing the joint letter so that each side has adequate time to address the 17 arguments. In the rare instance that a joint letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not 18 to exceed two pages, which shall include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. 19 The parties shall submit one exhibit that sets forth each disputed discovery request in full, 20 followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be 21 included in the exhibit. No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior court approval. The 22 court will review the submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are 23 necessary. Discovery letter briefs must be e-filed under the Civil Events category of Motions 24 and Related Filings > Motions - General > “Discovery Letter Brief.” 25 All exhibits to discovery disputes should be separately filed on ECF (for example, if the 26 motion is Docket No. 30, and the declaration with 10 exhibits is Docket No. 31, Exhibit A would 27 be filed as Docket No. 31-1, Exhibit B would be Docket No. 31-2, and so on). All exhibits shall 1 The court expects counsel to appear in person at discovery hearings, or on camera if the 2 hearing is conducted by video. This provides the opportunity to fully engage counsel in resolving 3 aspects of the dispute. If the court sets an in-person discovery hearing, permission to attend by 4 telephone may be granted upon advance written request if the court determines that good cause 5 exists. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the request. 6 Litigants and lawyers may provide their pronouns by filing a letter or adding pronouns 7 next to their names in their filings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Douglas v. District of Columbia Housing Authority
306 F.R.D. 1 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court
231 Cal. App. 4th 1214 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tribuo Partners LLC v. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, P.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tribuo-partners-llc-v-wilson-sonsini-goodrich-rosati-pc-cand-2023.