Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04223
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Epidemic Sound v. Meta, Judge Corley found some challenged documents protected and ordered Meta to reproduce or narrow redactions for the rest.
Epidemic Sound, AB and Meta Platforms, Inc. are affected by the ruling on Meta’s withdrawal and redaction of 15 discovery documents. Meta must reproduce unprivileged documents and narrow overbroad redactions.
What happened
In Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the parties disputed Meta’s February 22, 2025 withdrawal of 15 documents from discovery. Epidemic Sound argued that the documents contained relevant business information and did not involve lawyers. Meta argued that the documents contained legal advice, communications with its lawyers, or work prepared for the lawsuit.
Judge Corley reviewed the documents privately under the parties’ discovery agreement. She found that two documents were protected because Meta employees prepared them while gathering information for settlement discussions. She also found that some portions of five documents were protected by attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications made to obtain or provide legal advice.
In the order, Judge Corley found that Meta had not justified withholding or broadly redacting the remaining documents. She ordered Meta to reproduce documents that were not protected and to narrow overbroad redactions. The order resolved the parties’ discovery dispute filed at Docket No. 249.
The detailed version
- Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04223
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter about Meta’s February 22, 2025 clawback of 15 documents. A clawback is the withdrawal of documents that a party previously produced, usually because the party later claims that the documents are protected from discovery. Epidemic Sound argued that the documents lacked lawyers as participants and contained relevant, discoverable business information. Meta claimed protection under the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege.
Under the parties’ stipulated clawback order, a party challenging a privilege claim could require the producing party to provide the document for the court’s private review. The court reviewed all 15 documents and decided the dispute without oral argument.
Work-Product Protection
The work-product doctrine generally protects documents or other materials prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation. Meta met its burden for two documents—META-EPDMS_00187830 and META-EPDMS_00260111—because they contained messages between non-lawyer employees gathering information and preparing for settlement discussions with Epidemic Sound. The court concluded that the messages were prepared because of the prospect of litigation and by or for a party.
Meta did not meet its burden for META-EPDMS_00282076, an in-house-attorney chat, because the record did not show that the discussion occurred in anticipation of this litigation rather than in the normal course of business. Meta also did not establish work-product protection for META-EPDMS_00282210, a spreadsheet related to workstreams, because it did not show that the spreadsheet was prepared for this litigation rather than ordinary business purposes.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made to obtain or provide legal advice. Meta met its burden for the following documents or redacted portions: META-EPDMS_00281048, META-EPDMS_00281094, META-EPDMS_00281927, META-EPDMS_00282076, and META-EPDMS_00277692. The protected material included descriptions of discussions with legal personnel, legal advice relayed to employees, draft deal provisions written by attorneys, and legal advice exchanged between in-house attorneys.
Meta did not meet its burden for the following documents or portions:
- META-EPDMS_00282300: The document did not show that the redacted information came from legal counsel. - META-EPDMS_00187835: The document did not show that employees were discussing or seeking legal advice. - META-EPDMS_00281864: Page 281877 was privileged because it relayed guidance from counsel, but the other designations were overbroad. - META-EPDMS_00282003: Pages 282004, 282006, 282010, and 282045 relayed guidance from legal counsel, but the other designations were overbroad. - META-EPDMS_00282551: The specified pages relayed guidance from counsel, but the other designations were overbroad. - META-EPDMS_00282206: Meta did not show which portions, if any, contained legal advice, and its “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL” label was insufficient by itself. - META-EPDMS_00282209: Meta did not show that the spreadsheet contained legal advice. - META-EPDMS_00282210: Listing “legal” as the owner of a workstream did not make the workstream legal advice or a confidential attorney communication.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered Meta to reproduce documents that were not privileged. For documents where Meta’s redactions were too broad, Meta was ordered to narrow the redactions consistently with the order. The order disposed of Docket No. 249.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.