In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs challenged many of Defendants’ attorney-client privilege designations. The parties narrowed the dispute to documents submitted for the court’s private review. Defendants withdrew most of the original privilege designations and submitted the remaining documents for review. Plaintiffs relied on the arguments in the parties’ joint letter, while Defendants submitted an additional letter and a declaration from Assistant General Counsel Ravi Puri.

The court applied California privilege law. Under that law, the party asserting privilege must first establish that a confidential attorney-client communication exists. The court explained that the key question is the dominant purpose of the relationship and communication. Business communications do not become privileged merely because a lawyer is copied, because the communication relates to legal advice, or because a lawyer provided business advice. Communications among non-lawyer employees may remain privileged when they convey legal advice or are reasonably necessary to transmit it.

Document-by-Document Rulings

Document No. 153512

The court found that portions of an email chain about responding to a reporter and drafting an internal knowledge-base article were business communications, even though Ravi Puri was included. Defendants were ordered to produce the email directed equally to Puri and communications executive Lisa Neitzel, the non-legal portions of a later email, and the remaining communications between Neitzel and Eddy Kim. Puri’s email conveying legal advice could remain redacted, as could three bullet points that the court accepted as reflecting Puri’s legal advice.

Document No. 16455

This email chain concerned business and legal approval of topics and a draft press statement. Defendants could narrowly redact specific references to requesting legal approval, limited to one or two words where appropriate. The later emails between non-lawyer employees Christina Garza and Joanna Andrade did not convey legal advice and had to be produced unredacted.

Document No. 17339

An email seeking feedback from both lawyers and non-lawyers about a draft press statement was not privileged because it would have been sent for a business purpose even without legal advice. It had to be produced. Defendants could redact two words following “Hi again” in a second email, but the remainder had to be produced unredacted. The later emails had already been produced.

Document No. 22007

This document included an email that the court ordered Defendants to produce as part of Document No. 16455, followed by an email from Puri conveying legal advice. The latter email was privileged on its face.

Document No. 23442

The redacted portion of this email chain concerned questions about a stop-ship communication, employee responses needed for Puri’s legal advice, and Puri’s advice. Those redactions were privileged, and Defendants did not have to produce anything further from this document.

Document No. 23506

This collaboratively edited document appeared to have been created for a business purpose, not specifically to seek legal advice. The court accepted that Puri’s comments were informed by his legal opinions and intended as legal advice, so those comments were privileged. If Puri’s edits were the most recent changes and Defendants had already produced an otherwise identical earlier version, no further production was required. Otherwise, Defendants had to produce the document while redacting Puri’s comments and tracked changes.

Document No. 45120

This Microsoft Teams conversation included Puri and non-lawyer employees. The portion consisting of Puri’s legal advice could remain redacted. Defendants had to produce the rest because it was a business discussion that apparently would have occurred in substantially identical form without Puri’s participation.

Document No. 45146

This draft customer communication about a firmware update was not privileged because it had been provided to several non-lawyer executives for review as well as to Puri. Defendants were ordered to produce it.

Document No. 74320

The redacted Teams messages consisted of employees asking Puri questions and Puri providing legal advice. The redacted portions were privileged, and Defendants did not have to produce anything further from this document.

Order

Defendants were ordered to produce documents consistent with the court’s analysis by August 7, 2025. If Defendants filed a motion for relief under Civil Local Rule 72-2 by that deadline, their production obligations would be stayed while Judge Lin considered the motion. If Judge Lin denied the motion in whole or in part, production would generally be due within two business days after that ruling unless Judge Lin set a different deadline.