Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00232/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00232-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA S. KELLEY d/b/a

PKELLEY ENTERPRISES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0232 JAM EFB 

vs.

CRATE & BARREL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM ORDER

 /

This case was before the undersigned on May 21, 2008, for hearing on defendant Crate &

Barrel’s motion for sanctions. Robert M. Milligan appeared as defense counsel and Scott A.

Burroughs appeared as plaintiff’s counsel. For the reasons stated below and on the record at the

hearing, defendant’s motion is denied. However, the court makes the following order requiring

plaintiff to provide a supplemental privilege log and various certifications. 

The parties were previously before the court on defendant’s motion to compel more

complete responses to various interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The

court granted defendant’s motion in part, and ordered plaintiff to provide verified, supplemental

responses to interrogatories nos. 14, 16, and 18, and requests for production of documents nos.

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 7
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

2

36, 37, 39, 50, 53, 73, and 74. The court further ordered plaintiff that, to the extent she did not

have documents responsive to these requests in her possession, she was to provide a certification

to that effect. Finally, the court ordered plaintiff “to support any claim of privilege – with

respect to these and any other discovery request – with a privilege log that accounts for each

withheld document and complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).” See March

14, 2008, Order. 

Defendant has moved for sanctions for plaintiff’s purported violations of this order and

for alleged misrepresentations in plaintiff’s initial disclosures. 

First, the court addresses defendant’s request for evidentiary sanctions precluding

plaintiff from presenting any evidence during the balance of the litigation regarding actual

damages and/or income directly attributable to the snowflake designs at issue in this case.

Rule 37(b)(2) provides that a court may issue sanctions for a party’s failure to obey a

discovery order, which may include “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or

opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). Further, Rule 26(g) requires every discovery disclosure and response to

be certified by an attorney. By signing, the attorney certifies that to the best of his knowledge,

information and belief, the disclosure or response is complete and correct and not intended for

any improper purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Rule 26(g)(3) provides for imposition of

sanctions where an attorney makes a certification in violation of the rule “without substantial

justification.” Id. Defendant moves for sanctions under both provisions. 

Defendant points to plaintiff’s initial disclosures served on September 17, 2007. In those

disclosures, plaintiff indicates that she had “[s]ales documents related to the print design(s) at

issue.” See Exh. B to Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 81), at 3:10-11. Despite this disclosure,

plaintiff has produced no documents relating to the sale of the designs at issue in this case. As is

made clear in plaintiff’s opposition, this is because there are no such documents. According to

plaintiff’s counsel, plaintiff derives revenue from advertisements on her website, and not through

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 7
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

3

direct sale of the designs. Although plaintiff should have provided a certification to this effect,

plaintiff has made quite clear that no such documents exist. The court orders plaintiff to provide

a sworn statement – certified by both plaintiff and her counsel – within fifteen days from the date

of service of this order, that plaintiff has no documents in her possession, custody or control

related to sales of the designs covered by the copyrights at issue in this case. Such certification

renders superfluous defendant’s request for an order precluding plaintiff from presenting such

evidence at trial.

While plaintiff has indicated that third party vendor, PayPal, may have some documents

relating to sales from before 2003, she claims that she does not have these documents in her

possession, custody or control. Plaintiff (and plaintiff’s counsel) shall also certify that

representation, and defendant is, of course, free to obtain the information from PayPal through a

subpoena. The certification is due within fifteen days from the date of service of this order. 

Furthermore, the court finds that plaintiff’s initial disclosures were not made in bad faith. 

At the time of the disclosure, plaintiff was in the process of changing attorneys. The file shows

that current counsel filed a notice of appearance on August 24, 2007, and that they were

substituted in as counsel of record on September 19, 2007. Plaintiff’s counsel claims that when

he made the disclosure on September 17, 2007, he believed that plaintiff had sales information in

her possession, but later learned that she did not. While plaintiff should have promptly notified

defendant of this fact, the court finds that sanctions under Rules 37 or 26 are not justified under

present circumstances, and finds the above-ordered certification to be the appropriate remedy.

Next, defendant asks the court to order plaintiff to provide more complete responses to

interrogatory no. 18 and request for production no. 50. Interrogatory no. 18 calls for information

related to plaintiff’s involvement with “any legal or administrative action (including but not

limited to, all civil, administrative and criminal actions) other than this case . . . .” See Exh. C to

Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 81), at 5:1-8. At the last hearing, the court found this

interrogatory to be overbroad, and the parties agreed that it should be limited to any lawsuits

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 3 of 7
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

1

 The plaintiff’s initial disclosures were produced on September 17, 2007, and plaintiff

has never explained the reasons for this delay.

4

involving the works at issue in this lawsuit, including plaintiff’s snowflake designs. Plaintiff

provided a supplemental response to the interrogatory, indicating that there was no information

responsive to this interrogatory. See id., at 5:17-19. It is unclear whether or not plaintiff verified

this response, and the court orders plaintiff (and plaintiff’s counsel) to provide a certification to

within fifteen days from the date of service of this order. 

With respect to document request no. 50, defendant argues that plaintiff has made

misrepresentations about the documents in her possession, and only produced documents

responsive to this request after the present motion was filed. Request for production no. 50

provides:

Produce all documents reflecting or relating in any way to any

action taken by You to enforce Your alleged copyrights against any

third parties, and the damages sought or obtained by You.

See Declaration of Robert B. Milligan in Support of Defendant Crate & Barrel’s Reply, Exh. C

thereto, at 25:12-15 (emphasis added). 

Although plaintiff indicated in her initial disclosures that she had in her possession

various “[c]ease and desist letters sent to various defendants providing notice” regarding

infringement of plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, plaintiff did not produce any cease and

desist letters until May 12, 2008.1 See Exh. B to Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 81), at 3:12-14;

Declaration of Bart A. Lazar in Support of Defendant Crate & Barrel’s Reply, ¶ 10; Exh. C

thereto. 

While plaintiff should have turned this information over as part of her initial disclosures,

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), plaintiff has since disclosed the letters. 

 Although it is unclear, it seems that plaintiff’s counsel misunderstood the scope of this

request. At the hearing and in the opposition, plaintiff seemed to argue that the only designs at

issue in this case are plaintiff’s snowflake designs, and that her other copyrighted designs are

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 4 of 7
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

2

 Upon further questioning at the hearing as to whether all such cease and desist letters

and related documents had been produced, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he thought that they

had been. However, he also indicated that he did not believe responses to the cease and desist

letters were called for by the request. The request calls for “all documents reflecting or relating

in any way to any action taken by You to enforce” the copyrights. See Exh. D to Motion for

Sanctions (doc. no. 81) (emphasis added). This clearly covers responses to cease and desist

letters. The court admonishes plaintiff and her counsel that parsing discovery requests in this

way simply wastes the client’s money and the court’s time. Meritless withholding of appropriate

discovery responses will result in sanctions, and if it is persistent, may even lead to a

recommendation that her pleadings be stricken or the case dismissed.

5

irrelevant to the dispute. However, plaintiff also indicated at the hearing that the registered

copyright that is the subject of this lawsuit is in fact a series copyright covering a number of

designs in addition to the snowflake designs.2

 Thus, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions at the

hearing, the other designs are “relevant” within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1). Accordingly, the court orders plaintiff to provide all

documents relating to her efforts to enforce her copyrights, including cease and desist letters

related to all designs covered by the series copyright at issue in this case and any responses to

such cease and desist letters. Failure to provide such additional documents within fifteen days,

together with a certification that all responsive documents have been produced, will result in

monetary and other sanctions. 

Finally, the court addresses defendant’s request to find a waiver as to the attorney client

privilege in light of plaintiff’s numerous boilerplate assertions of the privilege and her woefully

inadequate privilege log. 

While the court agrees that plaintiff’s privilege log fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(5), the court does not find that the present circumstances warrant a finding of waiver. See

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir.

2005) (determination of waiver in the context of a late or inadequate privilege log should reflect

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”).

////

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 5 of 7
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

3

 Indeed, the court cautioned plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing that he may need to

reevaluate his belief, expressed at the hearing, that no attorney client privileged document “could

ever possibly be admitted into evidence” in this case. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Willms, No. 02-cv6583 AWI SMS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67486, at * 20-21 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2007) (where

plaintiff opposed motion to enforce settlement agreement by placing in issue whether his

attorney had his client’s consent to enter into the agreement, plaintiff waived any privilege

regarding issues pertaining to the agreement) (citing Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 718

(9th Cir. 2003)). 

6

However, as noted, plaintiff’s privilege log does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(5). It fails to give opposing counsel or the court sufficient information to test and

determine the validity of the assertion of privilege. As discussed at the hearing, plaintiff’s

counsel indicated that his only true objection on the basis of attorney client privilege is with

respect to request for production no. 53. Request no. 53 calls for: 

all documents evidencing, referring to, supporting or relating to

any opinion review, analysis of advice involving the validity,

authorship, ownership, right to use, damages, inadequacy of

damages, and damages theory. 

See Exh. D to Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 81), at 6:10-13. 

While this request does seem to call for much information covered by the attorney client

privilege, defendant argues that it is relevant to defendant’s counterclaim for breach of the

settlement agreement. When the district judge denied defendant’s motion to enforce the

settlement agreement on January 8, 2008, it was due, in part, to plaintiff’s sworn declaration that

her previous attorney lacked authority to compromise her claim. See January 8, 2008,

Memorandum Opinion and Order, at 9:21-10:17. While defendant’s request for waiver in the

present motion is based solely on the inadequacy of the privilege log, waiver in the context of

settlement discussions is another matter altogether.3

 However, the court does not address or

decide that issue here. 

Because the request does call for potentially relevant information, the court will again

order plaintiff to respond to the request and to provide a privilege log that complies with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(5). That is, for each document withheld on the basis of privilege, plaintiff shall

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

provide sufficient information (e.g., date of document’s creation, author of document, recipient,

type of document, etc.) so that opposing counsel and the court can test the privilege. Further, in

accordance with the parties’ representations at the hearing, the court orders plaintiff to provide a

certification that he withdraws all boilerplate assertions of attorney client privilege apart from

those asserted in response to request for production no. 53. The log and certification shall be due

within fifteen days from the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order will

result in a finding that the privilege has been waived with respect to this request, and will result

in additional sanctions.

Finally, the court denies both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions in connection with

this motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) (where motion is granted in part and denied in part, the

court may apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion). Although the court grants plaintiff

some of the relief sought in the motion, it denies the request for both evidentiary and monetary

sanctions. Because much of this dispute should have been resolved through meet and confer

efforts, the court declines to award sanctions at this time. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 27, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 05/28/08 Page 7 of 7