Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00019/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00019-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) - Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLLATERAL ANALYTICS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-0019 RS (JSC) 

ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE

ORDER DISPUTE

Dkt. No. 109

Now pending before the Court is a joint letter from the parties regarding a dispute as to the 

meaning of Section 13 of the protective order. (Dkt. No. 62.) In particular, Defendants contend 

that pursuant to Section 13, the parties agreed to jettison the requirement to produce privilege logs 

for documents withheld on privilege grounds, except for privileged documents inadvertently 

produced and subsequently clawed back. The Court has reviewed the protective order and the 

parties’ correspondence and disagrees with Defendants’ interpretation.

Section 13, by its plain language, addresses only material inadvertently produced and then 

subsequently clawed back as clear from its title: “INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF 

PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED MATERIAL.” (Dkt. No. 62 at 16.) The Section 

provides that if a party inadvertently produces material it believes is privileged, the parties’ 

obligations are those set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A-B). Those rules 

have been interpreted to require, among other things, a privilege log. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(5)(A); Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, No. 15-CV-00798-HSG, 2016 WL 3001158, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. May 25, 2016). Section 13 then goes on to state that “for inadvertently produced material 

only,” the party attempting to claw back inadvertently produced documents must produce a 

privilege log within seven days of providing notice of its attempt to claw back the documents, or 

Case 3:18-cv-00019-RS Document 111 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

within a reasonable amount of time if the documents being clawed back are voluminous. (Dkt. 

No. 62 at 16.) The parties’ correspondence demonstrates that this timing—seven days or a 

reasonable amount of time—was negotiated from an initial proposal that required production of 

the privilege log simultaneous with the claim of privilege over the inadvertently produced 

documents. Thus, the phrase “for inadvertently produced material only” refers to the timing of the 

production of the privilege log for inadvertently produced documents. There is nothing in Section 

13 or the parties’ correspondence that supports Defendants’ contention that the parties agreed to 

forgo the production of privilege logs in their entirety, except for inadvertently produced 

documents. Accordingly, Defendants are required to produce privilege logs for documents they 

are withholding on privilege grounds. Such logs must be produced within 14 days of the date of 

this Order. And going forward, all parties must produce privilege logs within 14 days of service 

of their written response to document requests unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.

All that being said, it often makes sense for parties to agree to forgo privilege logs for 

documents involving counsel that were created after the initiation of litigation. The Court 

encourages the parties to explore such a reasonable limitation.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 109.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2018

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00019-RS Document 111 Filed 11/01/18 Page 2 of 2