Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-mc-80132/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-mc-80132-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Movant,

v.

MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-mc-80132-JSC 

ORDER RE: PALANTIR’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Palantir Technologies Inc. alleges that Marc L. Abramowitz took advantage of

his position as an investor and confidant to learn Palantir’s trade secrets and file patent

applications based on those trade secrets in the United States and Germany. Palantir has filed suit

in Germany challenging Mr. Abramowitz’s cybersecurity patent applications (the “German 

Proceedings”). By Order filed November 22, 2019 the Court granted Palantir’s application under 

28 U.S.C. § 1782 for certain discovery to be used in the German Proceedings. (Dkt. No. 66.) The 

case in Germany is proceeding.

Now pending before the Court is a discovery dispute joint letter regarding Mr. 

Abramowitz’s production of documents in response to the Court’s Order. (Dkt. No. 85.) Palantir 

contends that Mr. Abramowitz has waived his attorney-client privilege as to certain 

communications and thus those documents must now be produced. After carefully considering the 

parties’ joint submission, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. 

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Palantir’s motion to compel.

DISCUSSION

“The privilege which protects attorney-client communications may not be used both as a 

sword and a shield. Where a party raises a claim which in fairness requires disclosure of the 

Case 3:18-mc-80132-JSC Document 86 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 4
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

protected communication, the privilege may be implicitly waived.” Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil 

Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2015 WL 

3863249, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015) (“The [fairness] principle is often expressed in terms of 

preventing a party from using the privilege both as a shield and a sword ... this means that parties 

in litigation may not abuse the privilege by asserting claims the opposing party cannot adequately 

dispute unless it has access to the privileged materials.”). Mr. Abramowitz, as the party asserting 

the privilege, bears the burden of proving that the privilege has not been waived. See Weil v. 

Investment/Indicators, Research and Management, Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 25 (9th Cir. 1981).

In a previous order the Court found that Mr. Abramowitz waived the privilege with respect 

to the 2013 communications he had with his attorney Mr. Squires regarding Mr. Abramowitz’s 

“ideas for using dynamic real-time information, in particular to provide dynamic bond ratings.” 

(Dkt. 82 at 4.) The Court reasoned that Mr. Abramowitz had “referred to those communications in 

his rejoinder and [was] relying on them to prove that he developed the idea that he contends 

motivates the Cyber Patents—dynamic real-time information—before meeting with Palantir.” (Id.) 

Further, Mr. Abramowitz admitted that Mr. Squires would testify to those communications.” (Id.) 

Palantir now contends that Mr. Abramowitz’s subsequent filings in the German 

proceedings have further waived any attorney-client privilege with respect to (1) Mr. 

Abramowitz’s correspondence with Mr. Squires concerning the technologies described in the 

Cyber Patents and (2) documents concerning the research, conception, or development of those 

technologies by Squires and any third-party agents retained by them. The Court agrees. 

In the German proceedings Mr. Abramowitz insists that he developed the Cyber Patents’

subject matter with a team of advisors, namely, Mr. Squires and his team. To support that 

assertion, he has actually disclosed privileged communications between Mr. Squires and his team 

as evidence that Mr. Abramowitz developed the Cyber Patent technologies with the assistance of 

Mr. Squires and his team. (Dkt. No. 85-1 at ¶¶ 75-81.) Mr. Abramowitz also offers the testimony 

of Mr. Squires to support his assertion that he (Mr. Abramowitz) did not provide Mr. Squires with 

any notes or other communications reflecting Mr. Abramowitz’s discussions with Palantir. (Id. at 

¶¶ 60-61.) Thus, Mr. Abramowitz has taken an affirmative act—identifying his communications 

Case 3:18-mc-80132-JSC Document 86 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 4
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

with Mr. Squires and Mr. Squires’ team as a defense to Palantir’s authorship claim—which 

waived any attorney-client privilege in his communications with Mr. Squires and Mr. Squires 

team, as well as the communications among Mr. Squires’ team regarding the Cyber Patents’ 

technology.

Mr. Abramowitz posits that in a section 1782 proceeding a respondent may block 

discovery of relevant communications under a privilege claim while at the same time intentionally 

putting those same communications at issue in the very foreign proceeding which is the basis for 

the section 1782 request. Under Mr. Abramowitz’s theory, he can disclose emails that support his 

defense, but withhold emails—such as an email communicating to Mr. Squires what Palantir told 

Mr. Abramowitz—on grounds of attorney-client privilege. Federal law is not so impotent as to 

allow such blatant gamesmanship and conduct inconsistent with the purpose behind the privilege. 

Bittacker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, (9th Cir. 2003), does not help Mr. Abramowitz. This section 

1782 proceeding is not separate from the German proceeding; to the contrary, Palantir had to show 

that the discovery sought here was to be used in the German proceeding to obtain the order 

compelling discovery in the first place. (Dkt. No. 66 at 6.) Nor is a criminal defendant’s 

constitutional right to effective counsel at issue in this proceeding.

Finally, Mr. Abramowitz argues that any motion to compel should be limited to the 

timeframe prior to the filing of the Cyber Patent applications since the privilege waiver arises from 

Mr. Abramowitz’s assertion that he developed the Cyber Patents subject matter independent from 

Palantir. This limitation makes sense and Palantir does not respond otherwise. 

Mr. Abramowitz has not shown good cause for limiting production to outside counsel only.

CONCLUSION

As Mr. Abramowitz has waived the attorney-client and work product privileges in the 

Squires documents and communications sought by Palantir, Palantir’s motion to compel is 

GRANTED up to the date the patent applications were filed. Mr. Abramowitz shall produce the 

documents on or before November 24, 2020.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 85.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:18-mc-80132-JSC Document 86 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 4
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

Dated: November 10, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-mc-80132-JSC Document 86 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 4