Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Mölnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC, Judge McCarthy granted in part and denied in part a discovery motion over privileged documents.
Mölnlycke must produce the specified sentence and email paragraph, while Greenwood receives no additional production of the materials the court found privileged or protected as work product. Greenwood’s request for fees was denied.
What happened
Mölnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC concerns Defendant’s request for documents and videos that Plaintiff withheld or redacted under attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The underlying lawsuit alleges patent infringement involving fluidized positioner products, while Defendant denies infringement and accuses Plaintiff of using the litigation to harm competition.
The court reviewed the disputed materials privately and ordered Plaintiff to produce two limited categories of information: one sentence appearing in five documents because Plaintiff had already disclosed it elsewhere, and the first paragraph of a March 1, 2021 email appearing in eight documents. The court allowed the remaining redactions and withheld documents to stand. It also denied Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees for bringing the motion.
Judge McCarthy concluded that the motion was granted in part and denied in part, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The order was signed by Judith C. McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge.
The detailed version
- Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-03719
- Cathy Seibel
- Oct. 29, 2024
Background
Mölnlycke Health Care US, LLC sued Greenwood Marketing, LLC, doing business as Restorative Medical or Spry Therapeutics, alleging infringement of two patents involving fluidized positioner products. Mölnlycke acquired the patents from Bill and Bob Purdy, who now own Greenwood. Greenwood denies the infringement allegations and maintains that Mölnlycke sought a competitive advantage by telling customers that Greenwood sold substandard products infringing Mölnlycke’s intellectual property and by using the lawsuit to deter customers.
The dispute addressed in this order concerned discovery, which is the exchange of relevant, nonprivileged information during a lawsuit. Greenwood asked the court to require production of 42 documents and two videos that Mölnlycke had withheld or redacted based on attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or both. The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications primarily made to obtain or provide legal advice. The work-product doctrine generally protects materials prepared because of anticipated litigation that reveal litigation-related investigation, analysis, or strategy. The court reviewed all submitted materials privately.
Rulings on the Document Categories
The court held that most of the challenged materials were properly protected. It found that emails concerning “Z-Flo Spry Intel of Loss” contained requests for legal advice and were shared only with employees who needed the information to perform their jobs. However, one sentence—“We are working on a rebuttal as well as more formal legal action”—had already been disclosed in another email, so the privilege over that sentence was waived. Mölnlycke had to produce that sentence in Log Nos. 334, 336, 380, 393, and 438.
For Log Nos. 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 362, and 381, the court found that the first paragraph under “New actions” in Eric De Kesel’s March 1, 2021 email was not protected by either privilege or the work-product doctrine. The court required Mölnlycke to produce that paragraph without redaction. It allowed the other redactions in those documents to remain because they reflected counsel’s investigation and mental impressions concerning potential infringement.
The court found that Log Nos. 358 and 360 were protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. It also allowed the redactions in Log Nos. 390, 391, 392, and 378 to remain because they contained legal advice or legal strategy shared with employees who needed the information. Log No. 333 was no longer disputed because Mölnlycke had provided an unredacted version, making that issue moot.
The court found Log Nos. 64, 65, 70, 71, and 86—including a video and related emails—to be work product because they were created as part of an investigation for anticipated litigation and would not have been prepared in substantially similar form without the prospect of litigation. The court also found Log Nos. 87 and 108 fully protected and Log No. 97 properly redacted. It allowed Mölnlycke to withhold Log Nos. 113, 289, 383, 442, and 444, and to withhold or redact Log Nos. 337, 339, 376, 382, and 461, because those materials contained protected legal advice, litigation investigation, or litigation strategy.
Crime-Fraud Exception and Fees
Greenwood also sought attorney’s fees and attempted to invoke the crime-fraud exception, which can remove privilege protection when communications were intended to further or conceal a crime or fraud. The court found that Greenwood had not shown probable cause that a crime or fraud had been committed or that the challenged communications furthered one. The court therefore denied Greenwood’s request for fees for the motion.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to compel. Mölnlycke was ordered to produce the waived sentence in five documents and the unprotected paragraph in eight documents. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The order was signed by Judith C. McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.