Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02646/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02646-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NANCY LANOVAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:12-cv-02646-RMW (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

JOINT REPORT NO. 1

Plaintiff previously challenged defendant’s claim of attorney-client privilege as to some 65 

documents listed on defendant’s privilege log. Plaintiff pointed out that certain privilege log 

entries contained no author or recipient.1 As to other documents, plaintiff argued that the privilege 

was waived because they apparently were sent to persons not employed by defendant.2 Certain 

other entries were challenged on the ground that no attorney was identified.3 As to this last 

category, this court ruled that defendant correctly noted that the privilege applies to “a 

communication between nonlegal employees in which the employees discuss or transmit legal 

advice given by counsel.” Dkt. 168 at 2 (quoting United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F. 

 

1

PRIV_TW004-5, 13-17, 22-24, 39, and 63-64.

2

PRIV_TW001-3, 6-8, 26-29, 32, 35, 38, 44, 68, 71, 77-78, 80, 95, 107-109 and 114.

3

PRIV_TW030-31, 33, 36-37, 65-67, 70, 72, 76, 81-84, 88-89, 90, 92-93, 96-97, 105, 110, 112, 

116-117, and 124-125.

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 198 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Supp.2d 1065, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Nevertheless, the court stated that entries for 

PRIV_TW090 and 112 should identify the email recipients. Id.

Although this court questioned the relevance of the challenged documents, it agreed to 

conduct an in camera review. Meanwhile, defendant served a supplemental privilege log

providing more information about the withheld documents, and the court directed the parties to 

submit supplemental briefing. Additional issues having been raised in the supplemental briefing, 

this court ordered defendant to lodge additional documents4for review and directed the parties to 

submit further briefing. Based on its review of all the lodged documents, as well as the parties’

briefs and supplemental briefs, this court rules as follows:

Plaintiff now agrees that PRIV_TW109 and 114 properly have been withheld as 

privileged. In any event, having reviewed the documents in the interim, this court finds that they 

are privileged.

Additionally, plaintiff now states she has no objection to the privilege claims re 

PRIV_TW011 and PRIV_TW020. And, having reviewed those documents, as well as the 

associated attachments (PRIV_TW013-17, 22-24) this court agrees that all of these documents are 

privileged.

Plaintiff maintains that the privilege has been waived as to communications involving 

persons not employed by defendant---namely, employees of Twinings London, National 

Importers, Fluid Communications, and ACH Food Companies. Additionally, plaintiff continues to 

challenge entries that she says still do not adequately identify the authors or recipients of the 

documents.

As to the majority of the remaining documents at issue, plaintiff argues that the privilege 

has been waived because they included employees of Twinings London. This court previously 

found that plaintiff offered no basis to challenge defendant’s assertion of the joint client privilege 

or the common interest exception to waiver. (Dkt. 168 at 2:6-10). See generally Nidec Corp. v. 

Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Having reviewed the documents, this 

 

4

PRIV_TW011 and 20.

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 198 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

court concludes that they properly have been withheld as privileged on this basis. Defendant’s 

privilege claims are not inconsistent with deposition testimony of Karen Maroli, defendant’s Vice 

President of Marketing.

Defendant says that National Importers is its exclusive distributor in Canada. (Dkt. 194-1, 

Martin Decl. ¶ 4). The challenged documents (PRIV_TW001-3) corroborate defendant’s claim 

that Henry Evans (formerly employed by National Importers) was intimately involved in assisting 

defendant’s counsel to render advice to Twinings on legal matters and essentially functioned as 

Twinings’ agent. These communications therefore are privileged. And, even if the privilege did 

not apply, this court fails to see how these documents have any bearing on the issues in this case. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Defendant identifies Fluid Communications as an outside consultant hired by Twinings to 

address regulatory and labeling issues. (Martin Decl., ¶ 5). Review of the documents 

(PRIV_TW006-8) corroborates this claim. Further, the communications demonstrate that Fluid 

Communications provided information to assist defendant’s counsel in rendering advice to 

Twinings on legal matters, not merely for business purposes. These communications are 

privileged.

Defendant identifies ACH Food Companies as a related corporate entity to Twinings that 

shares the same legal counsel. (Martin Decl. ¶ 6). Review of the documents (PRIV_TW068)

corroborates this claim. These communications are privileged.

With respect to those documents that were challenged on the ground that no attorney was 

identified, this court finds that they properly have been withheld as privileged. As for documents 

that continue to provide no specific author or recipient information (PRIV_TW039, 63-64, 90, 

112), this court concludes that they, too, are privileged:

Based on review of surrounding document PRIV_TW038, PRIV_TW039 is privileged. 

For the reasons discussed above, Document 38 is privileged and the privilege has not been waived. 

Without disclosing details, Document 39 appears to be notes following on from communications

with counsel as to matters identified in Document 38. And, it is also apparent to this court that the 

author of those notes was one of the identified participants in those discussions. PRIV_TW039

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 198 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

properly has been withheld as privileged.

For PRIV_TW063-64, defendant’s supplemental privilege log identifies the author only as 

“Outside Counsel.” However, it is readily apparent from review of these documents that the 

information being conveyed to the identified Twinings recipient is legal advice re labeling issues. 

These documents are privileged.

As for PRIV_090 and 112, review confirms that both are emails forwarding privileged 

communications with defendant’s counsel. Defendant says that it is unable to identify the 

recipient(s) of these emails, although the supplemental privilege log suggests that Document 90 is 

an email that Hoffman may have forwarded to herself. As for Document 112, the content of the 

document suggests that Hoffman was relaying legal advice from defendant’s counsel to others 

within Twinings who were involved in the matters for which legal advice was solicited. On this 

record, this court is unprepared to find that the privilege has been waived.

“Under the crime-fraud exception, communications are not privileged when the client 

consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud or crime.” In re 

Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). To invoke the 

crime-fraud exception, Lanovaz must show that (1) Twinings “was engaged in or planning a 

criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme” and (2) 

“the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and 

were made in furtherance of [the] intended, or present, continuing illegality.” Id. (citation 

omitted). As to all of the documents submitted for review, this court concludes that the crimefraud exception does not apply.

Defendant need not produce any of the challenged documents.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 198 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

5:12-cv-02646-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Ben F. Pierce Gore pgore@prattattorneys.com, cotto@prattattorneys.com, dawn@cfbfirm.com, 

ntmaddux@barrettlawgroup.com, PTaylor@barrettlawgroup.com, rtrazo@prattattorneys.com

Brian K Herrington bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com, bherrington@pacernotice.com, 

clittlejohn@barrettlawgroup.com

Charles F. Barrett cbarrett@nealharwell.com, dgarrison@nealharwell.com

Claudia Maria Vetesi cvetesi@mofo.com, lsario@mofo.com

J. Price Coleman colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

William Francis Tarantino wtarantino@mofo.com

William Lewis Stern wstern@mofo.com, jhaskins@mofo.com, lisaflores@mofo.com, 

lwongchenko@mofo.com

Case 5:12-cv-02646-RMW Document 198 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 5