Kannan v. Apple Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:17-cv-07305
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Kannan v. Apple Inc., Magistrate Judge Demarchi protected most withheld documents but required a corrected privilege log and possible production of two entries.
Raja Kannan and Apple Inc.; the order determined which documents Kannan withheld from discovery could remain protected and required a revised privilege log and possible production of documents tied to entries 3 and 16.
What happened
In Kannan v. Apple Inc., the parties disputed whether Raja Kannan’s privilege log adequately explained documents he withheld from discovery. Apple argued that the log did not meet the required standard, while Kannan defended his claims of attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, and protection for private communications with his wife.
After reviewing the submitted documents privately, the court found that many documents involved Kannan’s efforts to obtain legal advice or were prepared for the lawsuit. It also found that other documents were private communications between Kannan and his wife. The court rejected privilege or protection for entries 3 and 16, although it was unclear whether those documents existed or were being withheld.
Magistrate Judge Demarchi ordered that the documents tied to entries 1–2, 4–15, and 17–23 and 25 did not need to be produced. She required Kannan to serve Apple with a more accurate, document-specific privilege log by November 6, 2019, and to produce documents tied to entries 3 and 16 by that date if they existed and were being withheld.
The detailed version
- Kannan v. Apple Inc. · No. 5:17-cv-07305
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 30, 2019
Background
The parties asked the court to resolve a dispute about the adequacy of Raja Kannan’s privilege log. After an earlier order found the log inadequate, Kannan served an amended log on October 16, 2019. The court directed him to submit documents corresponding to entries 1–20 for private review, but he submitted documents corresponding to entries 1–2, 4–15, 17–23, and 25. The opinion states that he submitted 22 documents for review, although the requested and submitted entry ranges do not include every number in that range.
Kannan claimed attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, and protection for private communications with his wife. Apple argued that the log did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5), which requires enough information about withheld documents to allow the opposing party to evaluate the claim. The parties also disputed whether Kannan could claim work-product protection for materials he prepared himself, without direction or involvement from counsel.
Legal standards
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made to obtain legal advice and an attorney’s responsive legal advice, if the privilege has not been waived. The party asserting the privilege must establish that it applies and must describe the documents sufficiently without disclosing the protected information.
The work-product doctrine provides qualified protection from discovery for materials prepared by or for a party or the party’s representative in anticipation of litigation or for trial. The court held that a party may assert work-product protection even without a lawyer, provided the requirements of Rule 26(b)(3) are met. The doctrine does not protect facts from disclosure, and the party asserting it bears the burden of showing that the materials qualify.
The marital-communications privilege protects private, confidential communications between spouses and is narrowly construed.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Kannan’s privilege log was not document-specific and did not accurately describe some of the documents submitted for review. For example, an exhibit submitted as entry 1 was an email exchange with a prospective lawyer from October 12–13, 2016, while the log used a broad description covering communications with various potential attorneys over a much longer period.
The court nevertheless found that certain documents reflected Kannan’s efforts to obtain counsel and were protected by attorney-client privilege. Those documents corresponded to entries 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 18, and 20. The court also found that documents Kannan prepared himself in anticipation of litigation were protected by the work-product doctrine because Apple had not shown a substantial need for them. Those documents corresponded to entries 5–15, 17, 19, and 20.
For entries 21–23 and 25, the court found that the log provided reasonable notice and that the documents appeared to be private, confidential communications between Kannan and his wife. The court therefore applied the marital-communications privilege. The court also concluded that saving the documents or communications on an Apple-owned computer did not waive the privileges or protections on the record presented. Apple’s argument on that issue was not adequately developed, and Apple did not dispute Kannan’s description of Apple’s policies and practices.
Disposition
The court concluded that the documents submitted for review corresponding to entries 1–2, 4–15, 17–23, and 25 did not need to be produced. It ordered Kannan to serve Apple with an amended privilege log that accurately described the documents he was withholding, without relying on broad date ranges or generic descriptions. The amended log was due by November 6, 2019, and Kannan had a continuing duty to update it if he withheld additional responsive documents based on privilege or another protection.
The court concluded that Kannan had not established privilege or protection for documents corresponding to entries 3 and 16. Because it was unclear whether those documents existed and whether Kannan was withholding them, the court ordered that he produce them by November 6, 2019, if they existed and were being withheld. The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.