Spectrum Scientifics, LLC v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC

Background

The direct purchaser plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants Synta Technology Corp. and Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co. Ltd. to provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 1. The interrogatory requested a detailed narrative of every communication between the Synta defendants or their counsel and Joyce Huang since June 1, 2020, including the date, substance, and method of each communication.

The plaintiffs said the information was relevant to their investigation of Huang’s destruction of the Synta defendants’ business records and the defendants’ knowledge of her activities. The Synta defendants objected that the request concerned communications with a third-party witness, sought privileged material, was overbroad and irrelevant, and duplicated deposition discovery.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court concluded that Interrogatory No. 1 was not limited to relevant facts about what the defendants knew concerning the document destruction. Instead, it required the defendants to catalog all communications with Huang, whether or not those communications contained relevant facts. Because the request was not a reasonable effort to obtain relevant facts, the court did not reach burden or proportionality.

The court rejected the Synta defendants’ argument that the attorney-client privilege protected defense counsel’s communications with Huang. That privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice, and the opinion did not indicate that Huang was within the attorney-client relationship.

The court nevertheless held that the request implicated the work product doctrine. That doctrine generally protects materials prepared by a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation, including an attorney’s preparation and interviews of witnesses. The plaintiffs could seek relevant facts about Huang’s conduct from Huang or the Synta defendants, but they could not require defense counsel to provide a detailed catalog of the dates, contents, and methods of all counsel’s communications with Huang.

The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the work product protection was waived. Their waiver argument appeared only briefly in a footnote and was not sufficiently developed. Nor had they shown a substantial need for the protected information under Rule 26(b)(3). The plaintiffs pointed to Huang’s status as an unfriendly third-party witness outside the court’s subpoena power, but they did not explain why the deposition discovery already available to them was insufficient or address other possible means of obtaining information from Huang.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring the Synta defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 1. The order resolved the discovery dispute without oral argument.