A&E Television Networks, LLC v. Big Fish Entertainment, LLC

Background

The court addressed defendants’ request for assistance with discovery disputes concerning A&E Television Networks, LLC’s privilege logs. A privilege log identifies documents withheld from discovery and describes the basis for withholding them, including attorney-client privilege—the protection for confidential communications made to obtain or provide legal advice.

A&E submitted a response opposing defendants’ request. A&E argued that defendants had raised their objections too late, after fact discovery had closed and while expert discovery was underway. A&E also argued that its privilege-log descriptions complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Local Rule 26.2.

The Disputed Documents

Defendants challenged 139 entries on A&E’s document-by-document privilege log. The court noted that one challenged entry described an email chain reflecting a request for legal advice from Henry Hoberman concerning the suspension of Live PD and related draft communications. The court accepted A&E’s good-faith assertion that it had reviewed the relevant documents again in good faith.

Defendants also challenged A&E’s categorical log for 360 documents involving requests for or the provision of legal advice concerning negotiations with Big Fish and Reelz about possible licensing of Live PD. A&E asserted that the category contained only privileged internal communications. The court accepted that assertion as well.

Court’s Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla held that A&E’s descriptions were not cursory and provided enough information to support its privilege claims. The court also found that A&E’s categorical log was not so vague or repetitive, and did not lack a reasonable basis for its groupings, as to require court intervention.

Accordingly, the court denied defendants’ request in full. The court did not order further itemized logs, sworn affidavits from company counsel, or private judicial review of the documents. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 109 and 110.

The court also expressed concern about the number and detail of discovery disputes brought before it. It reminded the parties to follow the discovery rules and urged them to meet and confer diligently and in good faith before asking the court to resolve future disputes.