Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-91/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER ON DISPUTE RELATED TO 

DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GATTI

Re: Dkt. Nos. 585, 605

On April 4, 2016, the parties sought the court’s intervention related to a dispute that arose 

during the deposition of Defendant Anna Gatti. The dispute related to Defendant Almawave 

USA, Inc.’s (“Almawave”) objection and instruction to Gatti not to answer a question based on 

attorney-client privilege. The court ordered Almawave and Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. (“Loop”) 

to submit further briefing on the dispute. [Docket No. 563 (Minute Order).] The parties timely 

filed their submissions. [Docket No. 585 (Almawave’s brief); 605 (Plaintiff’s brief).] This 

dispute is appropriate for resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

The question at issue was, “did you have any discussion with [Valeria Sandei] about the 

legality of their retaining you to work as the CEO of the company while you continued to be the 

CEO of Loop AI?” Plaintiff’s Brief Ex. 1. In its submission, Almawave indicates that the dispute 

is moot because Gatti subsequently provided an unequivocal answer to the question after counsel 

reconsidered the instruction not to answer. Although the parties did not submit the relevant 

portion of the deposition transcript, it appears that Gatti answered the question by testifying that 

she did not recall. 

While Plaintiff acknowledges that Gatti eventually answered the question, it argues that 

Almawave colluded with Gatti during a break, “resulting in Ms. Gatti’s alleged lack of 

recollection . . . [which] was clearly calculated to attempt to moot the Court’s decision to resolve 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 665 Filed 05/10/16 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

the issue.” Plaintiff’s Brief at 2. Plaintiff asserts that the issue of Almawave’s alleged improper 

assertion of attorney-client privilege “remains as to dozens of written communications over the 

identical topic,” and attaches an excerpt of entries from Almawave’s privilege log related to 

communications about Gatti’s employment with Almawave. Id.; see Plaintiff’s Brief Ex. 2. 

Because Gatti provided a response to the question that was the subject of the parties’ 

request for intervention, the parties’ dispute is moot. To the extent Plaintiff uses this dispute as a 

vehicle to attempt to compel Almawave to produce documents withheld on the basis of the 

attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff’s attempt is denied. Fact discovery is closed. Plaintiff did not 

file a timely motion to compel these documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 665 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2