Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-00287/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-00287-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

JGX, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN HANDLERY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00287-BLF (SVK)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 88

On October 22, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Parties’ discovery dispute set forth at 

Dkt. 88. Upon consideration of the Parties’ submission and arguments of counsel and for the 

reasons set forth at the hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

1. The participation of former-Defendant Singer in communications between the Handlery 

Defendants and their counsel does not, by itself, preclude the attorney-client privilege or 

the work-product doctrine. As alleged extensively in the Complaint, Singer was acting as 

Defendants’ agent during the relevant time period prior to the filing of this suit. See 

Schaeffer v. Gregory Village Partners, 78 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 

2. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Handlery Defendants’ privilege log is untimely. The log was 

served on Plaintiffs in December of 2018 and the challenge to the log was not raised until 

after the close of discovery in October of 2019. 

3. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Singer privilege log as set forth in Dkt. 88 is not per se

untimely. 

4. As directed at the hearing, Defendants submitted documents that were unique to the Singer 

privilege log (in that they did not appear on the Handlery log) to the Court for an in-camera 

review. Dkt. 93. The Court has reviewed these documents and finds that they are covered 

by either attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine EXCEPT for the following 

Case 5:17-cv-00287-BLF Document 97 Filed 10/31/19 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

documents which the Court preliminarily finds are NOT protected by either privilege: 

• SINGERPRIV0000001-2;

• SINGERPRIV0000003;

• SINGERPRIV0000020-23;

• SINGERPRIV0000024;

• SINGERPRIV0000025;

• SINGERPRIV0000026-28;

• SINGERPRIV0000081-93;

• SINGERPRIV0000123-37;

• SINGERPRIV0000177-80;

• SINGERPRIV0000185-89;

• SINGERPRIV0000190-95;

• SINGERPRIV0000254-59.

5. Defendants have until November 7, 2019 to either (1) produce these documents to 

Plaintiffs; or (2) submit a confidential brief to the Court, without service on Plaintiffs, 

setting forth a factual basis for the claim of privilege for any of the documents listed above. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00287-BLF Document 97 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 2