Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC

Background

Amazon, the judgment creditor, asked the court to compel PersonalWeb, the judgment debtor, to answer interrogatories and produce documents in the custody of PersonalWeb’s former counsel, the Stubbs Alderton law firm. The request followed an earlier order requiring PersonalWeb to respond fully to Amazon’s post-judgment discovery “without objection” and to produce all requested documents.

The discovery included questions about communications with attorneys concerning possible monetary awards, fees, sanctions, or costs, and whether PersonalWeb relied on advice from counsel in assessing the likelihood of an adverse monetary award. The document requests also covered business and asset-related materials within the possession, custody, or control of PersonalWeb or its attorneys and expressly addressed claims of privilege.

After the earlier order, PersonalWeb provided some additional responses and documents but continued asserting attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection. PersonalWeb also argued that the new motion to compel was untimely because it followed the July 2021 responses by more than a year.

Waiver of Privilege Objections

The court held that PersonalWeb waived its privilege objections. It relied on the general rule that failing to object to discovery within the required time waives an objection, including an objection based on privilege, absent an extension or good cause.

The court rejected PersonalWeb’s argument that the earlier order was either an unclear ruling or an independent ruling that privilege had been waived without the parties’ request. The court concluded that the discovery plainly sought information and documents held by PersonalWeb’s counsel, Amazon had argued in the earlier discovery dispute that PersonalWeb waived all objections, and PersonalWeb had not argued at that time that its privilege objections were preserved. In the court’s view, the earlier order’s direction to respond “without objection,” together with that context, made the waiver clear.

Timeliness and Disposition

The court rejected PersonalWeb’s timeliness argument. Although a motion to compel filed more than a year after discovery responses could ordinarily present a problem, the court pointed to PersonalWeb’s efforts to avoid enforcement of the judgment, a state-court receivership proceeding that PersonalWeb claimed blocked Amazon’s discovery, the resumption of proceedings in this court, former counsel’s efforts to withdraw, and the later appearance of new counsel. The court also noted that the parties had continued meeting and conferring about production.

The court granted Amazon’s request to compel. It held that PersonalWeb waived attorney-client privilege and attorney-work-product protection regarding the subject discovery and ordered PersonalWeb to provide complete responses and a complete document production. The court noted that the parties had separately stipulated to a process and timing for producing non-privileged materials and stated that Amazon could submit a proposed completion deadline if necessary.