WCA Holdings III, LLC v. Panasonic Avionics Corporation

Background

The filing is a joint letter submitted after the court directed the parties to meet and confer about outstanding discovery issues. WCA Holdings III, LLC (WCA) continued to seek discovery from Panasonic Avionics Corporation (PAC) concerning two categories of documents:

1. Documents showing prices for comparable LHT or IDAIR aircraft parts that corresponded to certain Panasonic parts described in a deposition as “aspirational.” 2. Other versions of a marketing document identified as Kennedy Deposition Exhibit 23, an eX1 products and services description document.

At the deposition, Richard Kennedy testified that pricing for comparable parts might be found in a contract involving Panasonic and Lufthansa Technik. He also testified that there were likely other versions of the marketing document. PAC said its personnel had been unable to locate the requested documents after searching, but it did not confirm that the documents never existed.

The privilege dispute

WCA also challenged PAC’s attorney-client privilege assertions. WCA argued that PAC improperly withheld email attachments and communications involving non-lawyers. WCA contended that some documents did not involve legal advice or lawyers and that sending a non-privileged attachment to an attorney did not automatically protect the attachment from disclosure. WCA also argued that copying a non-lawyer who sometimes works with lawyers did not make an entire communication privileged.

PAC responded that it had reviewed the challenged documents, released some documents, and provided a revised privilege log. PAC argued that certain attachments and communications were privileged because they were connected with legal advice or were sent to employees working at the direction of counsel. PAC identified particular log entries involving its legal contracts department and said some documents had already been produced from another source. PAC also said it was willing to provide more detail if the court required it.

Court action

The parties agreed that they had completed the required discovery conference, but they did not resolve the disputes. The court’s endorsement did not grant or deny WCA’s discovery requests, order PAC to produce the disputed documents, or decide whether the privilege assertions were valid. Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered a telephone status conference concerning the matter for October 24, 2024, at 3:00 p.m.

Effect of the order

The order continued the court’s management of the parties’ discovery disputes and set a status conference. The filing does not state a final ruling on the requested discovery or the privilege challenges.