United States District Court, N.D. California
FURTHER ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' JUNE 7, 2019
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER RE: DKT. NOS. 184, 194
VAN KEULEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court's second order addressing ECF 184 in which
Plaintiff X One, Inc. (“X One”) moves to compel
in camera review of certain emails identified in
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (“Uber”)
privilege logs and moves to compel further responses to X
One's Requests for Admission (“RFAs”). ECF
184. On June 18, 2019, the Court issued its first order
regarding this dispute. ECF 194. The Court ordered Uber to
submit the documents for which Uber withdrew its work product
production claim for in camera review and requested
that the Parties indicate whether Uber or X One, or both,
produced the documents identified in RFAs Nos. 12-15, 22, 23,
27, 34, 35 and 42. Id. at 2-4. The Court also denied
X One's motion to compel a further response to RFAs Nos.
18-21, 24, 25, 39, 40 and 56-61. Id. at 4.
to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter
suitable for disposition without oral argument. The Court has
received and reviewed the documents Uber produced for in
camera review as well as the Parties' responses
regarding who produced the documents identified in RFAs Nos.
12-15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42. As set forth below, the
Court FINDS that attorney-client privilege
applies to the documents produced by Uber for in
camera review. The Court further ORDERS
that RFAs. Nos. 12-15, 22, 23, 27, 34 and 35 are deemed
ADMITTED according to the limitations set
forth below. Lastly, the Court DENIES X
One's motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 42.
UBER'S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CLAIM
its June 7, 2019 motion to compel, X One sought clarification
regarding the privilege status of documents identified in
Uber's privilege log based primarily on Uber's
decision to withdraw work product protection from those
documents after receiving X One's May 29, 2019
supplemental response to an interrogatory regarding X
One's damages contentions. ECF 184 at 1-3.
Uber withdrew its work product protection claim over the
documents that X One now challenges, it maintains that
attorney-client privilege still applies to these documents.
Id. at 3. Attorney-client privilege protects
confidential communications between attorneys and clients
made for the purpose of giving legal advice. See United
States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011).
This privilege protects communications with outside as well
as in-house counsel. See United States v. Rowe, 96
F.3d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996). Likewise, the privilege can
also apply to communications between members of in-house
counsel. See United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.,
241 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
Court has reviewed the documents described in entries nos. 10
and 30-43 of Uber's June 2019 privilege log at Ex. 6 (ECF
181-8). The Court FINDS that all the
documents are properly categorized as privileged
attorney-client communications and that Uber has properly
withdrawn its work product protection designation over these
documents. To the extent that X One moves to compel
production of these documents, the Court
DENIES X One's request.
X ONE'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
One's RFAs Nos. 12-15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42, relate
to whether individuals sent or received certain
communications. Uber's refusal to admit or deny receiving
documents that it produced is not well taken, particularly
where Uber denies receiving emails sent from X One to Uber
and produced by Uber. Without a citing a single supporting
fact, such as a demonstrable failure of an email server on a
given date, it is untenable that such denials were made in
good faith. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as
• X One's RFAs Nos. 12-15, 22, 23, 34 and 35 are
• X One's RFA No. 27 is deemed
ADMITTED as to Travis Kalanick's receipt
of Jose Picazo's December 10, 2014 email.
• X One's motion to compel a further response to RFA
No. 42 is DENIED. Uber argues that Mr.
O'Shea could not recall sending the chart identified in
RFA No. 42 to Mr. Michael. ECF 184 at 5-6. This explanation
provides sufficient support for Uber's response that it
lacks enough information to admit or deny RFA No. 42.
the Court OR ...