On April 18, 2018 a
Order - ORDER RULING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL WEBSPECTATOR CORPORATION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS LISTED ON PRIVILEGE LOGS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
was filed
involving a dispute between
Webspectator Corporation,
and
Holscher Mark Charles,
Kirkland & Ellis Llp,
for Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Derg L,L E
County oFSure
L, of, Cality
Superior Court of California nig
“Anger
SEP
County of Los Angeles Sher
arty 3 2019
By ive Opn
Er/Clp, i
Department 51. °SSicg
Cla Very OU)
* Duty
WEBSPECTATOR CORPORATION, Case No.: BC702466
Plaintiff, Hearing Date: 9/12/19
Vv. Trial Date: 11/12/19
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, et al. RULING RE:
Defendants. Motion to Compel Webspectator Corporation
to Produce Documents Listed on Privilege
Logs and Request for Sanctions
On August 20, 2019, Defendants Kirkland & Ellis LLP (“K&E”), et al. (collectively
“Defendants”) filed this opposed motion to compel Plaintiff Webspectator Corporation
(“Webspectator”) to produce documents listed on privilege logs and request for sanctions.
The Court considered the moving, opposition, reply papers and oral arguments, and rules as
follows.
Standard:
“The attorney-client privilege, which is set forth in Evidence Code section 954, confers a
privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a
confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open
discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding legal matters.” Fiduciary Trust Internat. Of
California v. Klein (2017) 9 Cal.App.Sth 1184, 1195 (“Fiduciary Trust”), quoting Costco
Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732. Where discovery is withheld on
the basis of a privilege claim or a claim that the information sought is protected work product,
the party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to
support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.
Fiduciary Trust, supra, 9 Cal.App.Sth at 1195.) Once the party establishes facts necessary to
support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in
confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the
communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply. Id.;
Evid. Code § 917(a).
Analysis:
Communications Through Third-party Email Domains
As an initial matter, K&E moves to compel production of documents listed on privilege logs on
the ground that some communications were sent or received through third-party email domains,
distinct from “@webspectator.com” email domain. K&E argues that emails regarding one
company sent via another company’s email system are not confidential or privileged because the
second company might have access to those emails.
1
Document Filed Date
September 30, 2019
Case Filing Date
April 18, 2018
Category
Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 10/21/2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Derg L,L E County oFSure L, of, Cality Superior Court of California nig “Anger SEP County of Los Angeles Sher arty 3 2019 By ive Opn Er/Clp, i Department 51. °SSicg Cla Very OU) * Duty WEBSPECTATOR CORPORATION, Case No.: BC702466 Plaintiff, Hearing Date: 9/12/19 Vv. Trial Date: 11/12/19 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, et al. RULING RE: Defendants. Motion to Compel Webspectator Corporation to Produce Documents Listed on Privilege Logs and Request for Sanctions On August 20, 2019, Defendants Kirkland & Ellis LLP (“K&E”), et al. (collectively “Defendants”) filed this opposed motion to compel Plaintiff Webspectator Corporation (“Webspectator”) to produce documents listed on privilege logs and request for sanctions. The Court considered the moving, opposition, reply papers and oral arguments, and rules as follows. Standard: “The attorney-client privilege, which is set forth in Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding legal matters.” Fiduciary Trust Internat. Of California v. Klein (2017) 9 Cal.App.Sth 1184, 1195 (“Fiduciary Trust”), quoting Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732. Where discovery is withheld on the basis of a privilege claim or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Fiduciary Trust, supra, 9 Cal.App.Sth at 1195.) Once the party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply. Id.; Evid. Code § 917(a). Analysis: Communications Through Third-party Email Domains As an initial matter, K&E moves to compel production of documents listed on privilege logs on the ground that some communications were sent or received through third-party email domains, distinct from “@webspectator.com” email domain. K&E argues that emails regarding one company sent via another company’s email system are not confidential or privileged because the second company might have access to those emails. 1