Roblox Corporation v. WowWee Group Limited
- Susan Illston
- 3:22-cv-04476
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Roblox v. WowWee, Judge Illston granted in part and denied in part discovery requests, ordered privilege-log supplements, and ruled on sealing.
Roblox, WowWee and the other defendants, Jazwares, and the public docket were affected by the discovery, privilege, and sealing orders.
What happened
Roblox Corporation v. WowWee Group Limited concerned defendants’ requests for more information about Roblox’s privilege log and for documents that Roblox had withheld as protected communications.
The defendants argued that hundreds of Roblox’s log entries did not adequately describe the documents or explain the claimed protection. They also challenged communications involving Jazwares personnel and asked the court to require production or privately review the documents. Roblox opposed the requests.
Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied in part the discovery requests. She ordered Roblox to supplement certain privilege-log entries, found that the common-interest protection covered contested communications involving Roblox and Jazwares lawyers, and required further briefing about entries listing only non-lawyer participants. She also denied one sealing motion as moot, granted another except for a footnote, and ordered other material unsealed.
The detailed version
- Roblox Corporation v. WowWee Group Limited · No. 3:22-cv-04476
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 8, 2023
Background
The defendants submitted a discovery letter asking the court to require Roblox to provide more information for some entries in its privilege log and to produce certain documents listed there. In the alternative, defendants asked the court to review those documents privately. Roblox opposed both requests.
The parties’ electronically stored information agreement and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) required a privilege log to describe withheld or redacted documents well enough for the opposing side to understand the document’s subject and the basis for claiming attorney-client protection or attorney work-product protection, without revealing the protected information itself. Defendants challenged 603 of Roblox’s 1,050 entries as too vague. Roblox responded that its descriptions were sufficiently specific and that it had offered to add language stating that the communications concerned requests for or receipt of legal advice.
Privilege-log supplementation
The court agreed that seven categories of subject-matter descriptions were insufficient: draft name, logo, brand, or badge guidelines; draft name, logo, brand, or badge guidelines under parallel review by Mark Barbolak; draft terms of use; the MyAvastars pre-litigation investigation; a licensing inquiry; draft user-generated content terms; and redemption code policies.
The court ordered Roblox to supplement the entries in those categories with enough information for defendants to understand the documents’ subjects and the bases for the privilege claims by December 18, 2023. The court found the other contested subject-matter entries sufficiently detailed.
Communications involving Jazwares
Defendants argued that Roblox had waived attorney-client protection by including Jazwares personnel in communications. Roblox argued that the communications were protected under the common-interest doctrine because Roblox and Jazwares were pursuing shared legal strategies.
The court explained that the common-interest doctrine is an exception to ordinary waiver rules. It can protect communications between separate clients and their lawyers when the parties share a common legal interest, have agreed—expressly or implicitly—to pursue a joint strategy, and use the communications to further that effort.
The court held that the doctrine applied to all contested privilege-log entries involving Roblox and/or Jazwares counsel. Jazwares had been a plaintiff in this case until September 27, 2023, and all of the contested entries came before that date. The court concluded that Roblox and Jazwares had pursued a joint strategy and shared a common legal interest as co-plaintiffs.
For contested entries listing only non-attorney participants, however, the court ordered Roblox to explain why the communications were protected by attorney-client privilege by December 22, 2023. Defendants could respond by January 5, 2024.
Sealing rulings
The court addressed three related administrative sealing motions. Defendants’ motion concerning another party’s material, Docket No. 139, was denied as moot. The discovery letter brief at Docket No. 148-3 and the redacted privilege log at Docket Nos. 148-5 were to be filed publicly, while their unredacted versions would remain sealed.
The court granted Roblox’s motion to seal portions of its response, Docket No. 145, except for Footnote 1, which quoted defendants’ privilege log. The full footnote was to be filed publicly, and Roblox was ordered to provide a redacted version of Docket No. 145-3 by December 15, 2023.
For Docket No. 146, defendants failed to file the statement or declaration required when a party asks the court to consider sealing another party’s material. The court therefore ordered the provisionally sealed document at Docket No. 146-3 to be unsealed and filed publicly, along with Footnote 1 of Docket No. 146-2.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ discovery requests, ordered the specified privilege-log supplements and briefing, denied defendants’ Docket No. 139 administrative sealing motion as moot, granted Roblox’s Docket No. 145 sealing request except as to Footnote 1, and ordered the specified Docket No. 146 material unsealed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.