Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00797/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00797-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

VIRTUE GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST 

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' 

MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: ECF Nos. 119, 120

Before the Court are the parties’ Motions for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of 

Magistrate Judge, which order resolved a discovery dispute between the parties. See ECF No. 103 

(Order); ECF No. 119 (Plaintiff’s motion); ECF No. 120 (Defendants’ motion). 

Magistrate Judge Kim granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents between Original 

MO21and its counsel at Bingham McCutcheon, ECF No. 103 at 9; Defendant seeks relief from 

that portion of Judge Kim’s order. Judge Kim also denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents 

relevant to the formation of Second MO2 and communications with lawyers regarding

assignments recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in September 2014, 

ECF No. 103 at 15; Plaintiff seeks relief from that portion of Judge Kim’s order. 

Because neither party has met its burden to demonstrate that Judge Kim’s order was clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law, the Court will deny both motions. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court may refer non-dispositive pretrial issues to a magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). This Court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings of fact for clear error and 

 

1

There are two entities named “MO2” in this case. One was created on November 9, 2012, and 

will be referred to as “Original MO2.” The other was formed on September 28, 2014, and will be 

referred to as “Second MO2.” 

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 157 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 6
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

reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. United States v. Doe, 

136 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir.1998); Wolpin v. Philip Morris Inc., 189 F.R.D. 418, 422 (C.D. Cal. 

1999). The clear error standard allows the court to overturn a magistrate’s factual determinations 

only if the court reaches a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Wolpin, 189 F.R.D. at 422 (citing Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Commonwealth Land Title 

Ins. Co., 130 F.R.D. 507 (D.D.C.1990)).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court need not repeat the background history of the litigation discussed at length in 

Judge Kim’s discovery order, see ECF No. 103, but will address the parties’ disagreements over

particular facts recited in the order. 

A. Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 120)

Defendants object to the portion of Judge Kim’s order that granted Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel documents between Original MO2 and Bingham McCutchen. ECF No. 120. Defendants 

argue that Judge Kim erred in (1) finding that attorney-client privilege did not transfer to Rearden 

Mova; (2) finding that Perlman disclaimed an interest in MO2; and (3) finding LaSalle had 

authority to disclose MO2 documents.

1. Transfer of Privilege

Judge Kim concluded that the attorney-client privilege ended with the dissolution of 

Original MO2 in November 2013. Defendants argue that this “conclusion is premised on the 

finding that the privilege did not earlier, in April 2013, transfer with the MOVA Assets to 

Defendant Rearden Mova,” when in fact the reverse is true. ECF No. 120 at 3. Defendants made 

the same argument before Judge Kim, but submitted no evidence in support of it. ECF No. 103 at 

8. Consequently, Judge Kim concluded that Defendants did not meet “their burden to show that 

Rearden Defendants obtained the ability to assert the attorney-client privilege for Original MO2.” 

ECF No. 103 at 9. Defendants now, for the first time, present a 63-page declaration from Stephen 

Perlman to support their argument that Rearden Mova was formed to receive MOVA Assets. See

ECF No. 121, Perlman Decl. This evidence was not before Judge Kim, however, and the Court 

declines to consider it. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 157 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 6
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

district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in 

a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.”). The Court concludes that Judge 

Kim did not err in her finding that Original MO2’s privilege did not transfer to Rearden Mova on 

April 19, 2013. 

Even if the MOVA Assets had transferred to Rearden in April 2013, however, the Court 

would still find that Magistrate Judge Kim did not err. The transfer of assets alone does not cause 

a transfer of attorney-client privilege. City of Rialto v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 

1201 (C.D. Cal. 2007); VIA Techs., Inc. v. SONICBlue Claims LLC, No. C 09-2109 PJH, 2010 

WL 2486022, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2010). Instead, the transfer of control over the entity 

“result[s] in a transfer of the attorney-client privilege.” City of Rialto, 492 F. Supp. 3d at 1201.

On this point, Judge Kim discussed the lack of evidence supporting a transfer of control from 

Original MO2 to Rearden Mova. She considered that Rearden took no steps to inform LaSalle 

that he no longer had a managerial role with Original MO2 and that Rearden did not take steps to 

document changes in LaSalle’s managerial status with Original MO2. ECF No. 103 at 5. 

Judge Kim did not err in finding that Defendants did not meet their burden to show that 

attorney-client privilege transferred from MO2 to Rearden Mova such that Defendants hold the

privilege for Original MO2.

2. Perlman’s Disclaimed Interest in MO2

Defendants next argue that Judge Kim erred in finding that Perlman disclaimed any

interest in MO2. ECF No. 120 at 3. In her discovery order, Judge Kim concluded that Defendants 

did not meet their burden to show that Rearden was Original MO2’s manager, given Perlman’s 

disclaimed involvement in Original MO2. ECF No. 103 at 10. 

Judge Kim’s finding was based on emails where Perlman: (1) disclaimed viability of the 

MOVA technology in 2012; (2) stated that he thought the patents were not monetizable and that 

the industry had moved past the technology; and (3) rejected OL2’s offer to sell the MOVA 

technology to Perlman. ECF No. 103 at 3. Further, Judge Kim noted that the engagement 

agreement to form MO2 noted that Rearden LLC would pay fees but that the engagement was 

only with MO2. Id. Finally, Judge Kim found that no corporate documents reflected that Perlman 

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 157 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 6
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

or Rearden had any managerial role in Original MO2. Id. at 4.

Because this Court does not reach the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed,” the Court concludes that Judge Kim did not err in finding that Perlman disclaimed 

involvement in Original MO2. 

3. LaSalle’s Authority to Disclose

Finally, Defendants argue that Judge Kim erred in finding that LaSalle had a managerial 

role at Original MO2 and could disclose MO2 documents and waive MO2 privilege. ECF No. 

120 at 3. 

Substantial evidence supports Judge Kim’s finding that LaSalle was a manager of Original 

MO2. Judge Kim noted that both parties conceded that Original MO2 had an attorney-client 

privilege and that some manager had the ability to waive the privilege when it was in existence. 

ECF No. 103 at 11. The parties also conceded that LaSalle had some managerial role with

Original MO2 before his employment with Rearden ended. Further, LaSalle was the only person 

named in documents detailing Original MO2’s corporate governance. Judge Kim did not err in 

concluding that as to Original MO2’s privileged information before April 2013, LaSalle had a 

“valid argument that his disclosure of privileged information was within the ordinary course of 

performing his duties, a permitted exercise of his discretion under the PIAA.” ECF No. 103 at 13.

The Court denies Defendant’s request for relief from Judge Kim’s discovery order.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 119)

Plaintiff objects to the portion of Judge Kim’s order that denied Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel production of attorney-client privileged documents responsive to Document Requests No. 

26, 27, 49, and 50. Plaintiff argues that Judge Kim erred in holding that Plaintiffs did not meet its 

burden demonstrating that the crime-fraud exception should apply to the privileged documents. 

ECF No. 119. 

“While the attorney-client privilege is arguably [the] most fundamental of the common 

law privileges recognized under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, it is not absolute.” In re Grand 

Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). Under the 

crime-fraud exception, communication is not privileged “when the client consults an attorney for 

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 157 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 6
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

advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud or crime.” Id. A party invoking the crimefraud exception must meet a two-part test: 

First, the party must show that “the client was engaged in or 

planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice 

of counsel to further the scheme.” Second, it must demonstrate that 

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.”

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 479 F.3d 1078, 1090 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Grand Jury 

Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381–83 (9th Cir. 1996)). The moving party must establish the existence 

of the crime-fraud exception by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1095. A district court 

may find a prima facie case of crime-fraud by examining privileged documents in camera or by 

looking at independent, non-privileged evidence. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d at 

1113.

“Mere assertion of fraud is insufficient; there must be a showing the fraud has some 

foundation in fact.” BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1240, 1262 

(1988). A prima facie case is “one which will suffice for proof of a particular fact unless 

contradicted and overcome by other evidence. In other words, evidence from which reasonable 

inferences can be drawn to establish the fact asserted, i.e., the fraud.” Id. The Court “should 

exercise considerable caution when they are pressed during the discovery stage of complex 

litigation to find that a showing of crime or fraud that is sufficient to justify penetrating the 

privilege has been made.” Laser Indus., Ltd. v. Reliant Techs., Inc., 167 F.R.D. 417, 436 (N.D. 

Cal. 1996).

Judge Kim denied Plaintiff’s request for the correspondence between Defendants and their 

lawyers relating to assignments recorded with the USPTO in September 2014. Judge Kim 

determined that the evidence provided in Plaintiff’s motion to compel was “not sufficient proof to 

show that defendants were ‘engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme’ to overcome 

the attorney-client privilege.” ECF No. 103 at 14 (quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 

F.3d at 1113). 

Plaintiff argues that Judge Kim erred in three respects: first, Judge Kim did not consider 

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 157 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

evidence that Defendants enlisted attorneys to make filings in the USPTO that contained false 

evidence; second, the evidence raised an inference sufficient to invoke the crime-fraud exception; 

and third, Judge Kim did not review in camera the communications related to filings to identify 

the material subject to the exception. ECF No. 119. 

Judge Kim did not err in determining that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden in establishing 

the crime-fraud exception. Judge Kim reviewed evidence, including a declaration from Perlman, 

in concluding that Plaintiff had not established Perlman’s knowledge of the representation’s 

falsity. See ECF No. 103 at 14 (“Although Mr. Perlman might be proved to be ultimately 

mistaken in this litigation, his attempt to seek legal advice and legal assistance to protect the 

patents and trademark for the MOVA technology is not sufficient proof of a crime or fraud.”). 

Defendants have further pointed to prior evidence reflecting their position that the assignments 

recorded in September 2014 describe the chain of title of the patent from OL2, Inc. to Original 

MO2. See ECF No. 138 at 5. Plaintiff’s assertions that Defendants knowingly made false 

statements to the USPTO, by itself, does not support a showing that Defendants planned a criminal 

or fraudulent scheme when it recorded the patent assignments. 

Judge Kim did not err in determining that Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to make 

out a prima facie showing of fraud.2 The Court accordingly denies Plaintiff’s motion for relief 

from Judge Kim’s order.

CONCLUSION

As the parties have not shown that Judge Kim’s discovery order is clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law, the Court denies Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

2 Because Judge Kim did not find Plaintiff made a prima facie showing, Judge Kim did not need 

to review the communications in camera. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d at 1114.

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 157 Filed 05/24/16 Page 6 of 6