Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-95/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 MARCH 29, 2016 ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE RE PLAINTIFF'S 

PRIVILEGE LOG

Re: Dkt. Nos. 540, 576

On March 29, 2016, the court issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Plaintiff Loop AI 

Labs Inc. (“Loop”) related to its privilege log. [Docket No. 540 (“OSC”).] Plaintiff filed a 

response to the OSC on April 6, 2016. [Docket No. 576.] This matter is suitable for resolution 

without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the court finds that Plaintiff has 

waived the attorney-client privilege and work product protection as to most documents withheld 

from production.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) provides that a party withholding information 

under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material must: (i) 

expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or 

tangible things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself 

privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(5).

The court’s June 2015 Notice of Reference and Order re Discovery Procedures provided 

that parties must “promptly provide a privilege log” if a party withholds responsive information by 

claiming privilege or protection. [Docket No. 117.] The court issued a January 27, 2016 Notice 

of Amended Discovery Procedures, which provides that “[i]f a party withholds responsive 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 680 Filed 05/13/16 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

information by claiming that it is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall 

produce a privilege log as quickly as possible, but no later than fourteen days after its 

disclosures or discovery responses are due, unless the parties stipulate to or the court sets 

another date.” [Docket No. 401 at 4.] Thus, Rule 26 and this court’s Standing Orders impose an 

affirmative obligation on parties to promptly disclose information about documents withheld 

pursuant to privilege or protection in the form of a privilege log. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to timely produce a privilege log may result in 

waiver of asserted privileges. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States 

District Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005),

B. Background

On March 8, 2016, Defendant Almawave USA, Inc. (“Almawave”) filed a unilateral 

discovery letter brief regarding Plaintiff’s refusal to produce a privilege log in connection with its 

September 2015 document production. [Docket No. 451.] In its letter, Almawave requested an 

order deeming Plaintiff’s failure to produce a privilege log a waiver of any claimed privileges, and 

asked the court to order Plaintiff to produce all documents withheld on privilege grounds. 

The court did not rule on the merits of Almawave’s unilateral letter brief, and in fact, 

denied it for failure to comply with the court’s procedures. [Docket No. 461.] However, the letter 

brought to the court’s attention the fact that Plaintiff potentially had violated its standing order on 

privilege logs. Applying its inherent authority1to control its docket, on March 9, 2016, the court 

ordered Plaintiff to produce a privilege log in accordance with the Notice of Amended Discovery 

Procedures by no later than March 16, 2016. [Docket No. 456.] 

On March 18, 2016, Almawave filed an administrative motion for leave to file a unilateral 

 

1

The Ninth Circuit has recognized the “well established” principle that “[d]istrict courts have 

inherent power to control their dockets.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 

146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir 1998) (alteration in original). Moreover, “all federal courts are 

vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms effectively and 

to ensure obedience to their orders.” United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 

2008) (en banc) (citations omitted). “These powers are governed not by rule or statute but by the 

control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (citation 

omitted). 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 680 Filed 05/13/16 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

discovery letter brief in which it asserted that Plaintiff had not complied with the court’s March 9, 

2016 order to produce a privilege log by March 16, 2016. It sought leave to file a motion to 

compel Plaintiff’s production of documents over its privilege claims based on waiver. [Docket 

No. 498.] Plaintiff did not timely oppose Almawave’s administrative motion and did not refute 

Almawave’s representations about its failure to produce a privilege log. Therefore, on March 29, 

2016, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 5, 2016 why it should not be 

sanctioned for failing to comply with the court’s March 9, 2016 order, and why its failure to 

produce a privilege log should not be deemed a waiver of any asserted privileges. 

Plaintiff filed a late response to the OSC in which it admits that it did not produce a 

privilege log by March 16, 2016, as ordered by the court. [Docket No. 576.] The response is 

unpersuasive. Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff’s counsel interpreted the court’s denial of

Almawave’s March 8 unilateral discovery letter as a “modification” of its order directing Plaintiff 

to serve a privilege log by March 16, 2016. According to counsel, Plaintiff thus believed that it

was “relieved” of the requirement to follow the court’s order. This is an unreasonable

interpretation for two reasons: 1) Almawave’s March 8 unilateral discovery letter, which the court 

denied, did not seek relief in the form of an order directing Plaintiff to produce a privilege log, and 

2) the court’s order denying Almawave’s March 8 letter made absolutely no mention of vacating, 

amending, or modifying its order directing Plaintiff to produce a privilege log. 

Remarkably, as of April 6, 2016, the date Plaintiff filed its late response to the OSC, 

Plaintiff still had not complied with the court’s order to produce a privilege log. Instead, Plaintiff 

asserts that it repeatedly advised Almawave that it needed more time to produce a privilege log,

and had notified Almawave of its intention to produce a privilege log by April 11, 2016. Plaintiff

also asserts that its privilege log “has no materiality to any aspect of this case,” and that “[n]othing 

of any relevance to this case is going to be discovered” through its privilege log. [Docket No. 576 

at 2.] It does not otherwise explain why its failure to produce a privilege log should not be 

deemed a waiver of privilege. 

Plaintiff finally served a privilege log on April 11, 2016. While Plaintiff’s response to the 

OSC was under submission, on April 28, 2016, Almawave filed a third administrative motion 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 680 Filed 05/13/16 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

related to Plaintiff’s privilege log. In its administrative motion, Almawave seeks leave to file a 

unilateral letter brief regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s privilege log. [Docket No. 630.] 

Plaintiff filed a timely opposition. [Docket No. 637.] On May 10, 2016, in order to evaluate 

Plaintiff’s response to the OSC, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit a copy of its April 11, 2016 

privilege log for the court’s review. [Docket No. 667.] Plaintiff filed the privilege log on May 11, 

2016. [Docket No. 670-1 (Privilege Log).]

C. Analysis

In Burlington Northern, the Ninth Circuit held that “boilerplate objections or blanket 

refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34 request for production of documents are insufficient 

to assert a privilege,” while rejecting a “per se waiver rule that deems a privilege waived if a 

privilege log is not produced within Rule 34’s 30-day time limit.” 408 F. 3d at 1149. Using the 

30-day period “as a default guideline,” the Ninth Circuit instructed courts to make a “case-by-case 

determination” of whether a party has waived privilege using the following factors: 1) “the degree 

to which the objection or assertion of privilege enables the litigant seeking discovery and the court

to evaluate whether each of the withheld documents is privileged”; 2) “the timeliness of the 

objection and accompanying information about the withheld documents”; 3) “the magnitude of the 

document production”; and 4) “other particular circumstances of the litigation that make 

responding to discovery unusually easy . . . or unusually hard.” Id. The court noted that “these 

factors should be applied in the context of a holistic reasonableness analysis, intended to forestall 

needless waste of time and resources, as well as tactical manipulation of the rules and the 

discovery process.” Id.

The first and second Burlington factors examine the opposing party’s ability to assess the 

applicability of the claimed privilege or protection and the timeliness of information about 

withheld documents. Here, Almawave was literally unable to assess or challenge Plaintiff’s 

claimed privileges or protection because Plaintiff did not serve a privilege log until April 2016, 

approximately seven months after Plaintiff’s initial production, and after fact discovery closed on 

March 29, 2016. Plaintiff’s privilege log was thus grossly late. Moreover, Plaintiff’s service of its 

privilege log in April 2016 violated three separate court orders: the June 2015 Notice of Reference 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 680 Filed 05/13/16 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

and Order re Discovery Procedures, (Docket No. 117); the court’s January 2016 Notice of 

Amended Discovery Procedures; and the court’s March 9, 2016 order to produce a privilege log 

by March 16, 2016. Finally, Plaintiff’s privilege log is plainly deficient. It contains no 

information about the titles and descriptions of the withheld documents, nor does it identify the 

subject matters addressed in the documents. This is exactly the kind of information that would 

enable Almawave to assess whether the assertion of privilege or protection is justified. It is also 

the kind of information that is required by Rule 26(b)(5), as well as the court’s standing orders. 

Plaintiff’s response to the OSC does not address any of the other Burlington factors, such 

as the magnitude of the documents produced or “particular circumstances of the litigation” that 

make responding to discovery unusually easy or unusually hard. The court notes that Plaintiff’s 

untimely privilege log is only four pages long and contains less than 50 entries, which does not 

indicate that the volume of documents at issue was particularly burdensome in the context of 

producing a privilege log. Plaintiff simply asserts that its privilege log is not important to this 

litigation and complains about the sufficiency of Almawave’s own privilege log. 

Applying the Burlington factors “in the context of a holistic reasonableness analysis,” the 

court concludes that Plaintiff has waived any privilege or protection it has belatedly asserted in its 

April 2016 privilege log based on the log’s untimeliness and deficiencies, as described above. See 

Burlington, 408 F.3d at 1149 (“Here, the district court found a waiver where the log not only was 

not filed during the Rule 34 time limit, but was filed five months later. In the absence of 

mitigating considerations, this fact alone would immunize the district court’s ruling from reversal 

under the standard just articulated.”). Plaintiff has also waived any privilege or protection for all 

documents responsive to Almawave’s discovery requests that Plaintiff withheld on privilege or 

protection grounds but failed to list on its privilege log, including pre- and post-litigation 

communications with third parties. However, this waiver does not extend to privileged 

communications involving trial counsel that post-date the filing of the complaint.

The court recognizes that waiver is a severe outcome, but such an outcome is warranted by 

Plaintiff’s repeated and unjustified failures to provide a timely and useable privilege log. 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 680 Filed 05/13/16 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

II. CONCLUSION

The court’s March 29, 2016 OSC is discharged. Plaintiff shall produce the documents 

described above for which the court deems the attorney-client privilege and work product 

production waived within seven days of the date of this order.

Almawave’s March 18, 2016 and April 28, 2016 administrative motions are denied as 

moot in light of the court’s determination of its OSC above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 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 680 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 6