Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.

Background

Case-Mate, Inc. submitted a letter seeking an order requiring ACS Group Acquisitions, LLC to produce documents under the court’s prior May 5, 2025 order. The requested documents were responsive to Case-Mate’s First Set of Requests for Production, dated November 7, 2024. After an August 12, 2025 conference, ACS submitted two agreements for the court’s private review: a “Co-Litigation Agreement” and a “Common Interest Agreement.” ACS withheld both based on privilege.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the Common Interest Agreement was similar to a joint defense agreement. Based on the work-product doctrine, which can protect materials prepared because of litigation, the court held that ACS properly withheld that agreement and properly listed it on its privilege log.

The court reached a different conclusion about the Co-Litigation Agreement. ACS did not carry its burden of showing or explaining how that document was privileged or protected work product. The document did not contain an expression of an attorney’s mental processes. Because it was responsive to Request for Production Nos. 11 through 13 and was not otherwise privileged, ACS was directed to produce it.

The court also directed ACS to produce documents responsive to Case-Mate’s November 7, 2024 requests. Any objections ACS added after fact discovery ended were overruled as untimely. The court stated that ACS’s original timely objections had already been overruled at a March 3 conference and in the May 5 order, which required ACS to produce responsive documents. ACS also could not rely on its earlier production to claim that it had satisfied its duty to provide responsive, non-privileged documents.

Attorney’s Fees and Disposition

Case-Mate sought attorney’s fees for efforts to obtain ACS’s compliance with the May 5 order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 generally requires payment of reasonable expenses when a motion to compel discovery is granted, subject to exceptions including circumstances making an award unfair. The court found that an award would be unjust because the wording of the May 5 order was ambiguous and ACS’s belief that it had complied by identifying documents in its production was understandable.

The court therefore did not award the requested fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 830. The opinion is signed by Valerie Figueredo, United States Magistrate Judge.