KJ-Park, LLC v. Match Group, LLC

Background

This order resolves a discovery dispute between KJ-Park, LLC and defendants Match Group, LLC and Match Group, Inc. The defendants claimed attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over disputed entries in their privilege log. Under the court’s April 19, 2024 order, Match submitted the disputed materials for the court’s private review, called an in camera review.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the documents using the legal framework discussed in its earlier orders. It ruled that items 5 and 7 were not privileged and had to be produced.

For item 8, the court found that the privilege log and participant list did not accurately identify all addressees and recipients. Although a portion of the email thread involved communications between a Match attorney and a Match employee, any privilege was waived when the thread was forwarded to JLL personnel. The court found that disclosure was not necessary to facilitate legal advice, and ordered production.

The court likewise ordered production of item 10, a draft letter to KJ-Park, because the record did not show why it was shared with JLL employees or that it was shared confidentially; any work-product protection had been waived. The court ordered production of item 11 after finding that any possible privilege in part of the thread was waived when the thread was forwarded to JLL personnel. Items 13 and 14 were also not privileged and had to be produced.

For item 15, the court found that most communications among Match or Match-affiliated employees were not privileged. Although one exchange included Match attorneys, any privilege was waived when the thread was forwarded to JLL personnel. The court also found no apparent separate basis for work-product protection. Items 16, 17, and 18, which involved draft letters and related email threads, had to be produced for the same reasons.

The court found that item 19 contained no privileged communications. It described the first email as summarizing a business decision and discussion among non-attorneys, and found that forwarding the exchange to JLL personnel waived any privilege that might otherwise have existed. Match asked to redact information concerning its efforts to lease space in San Francisco. The court denied that request because irrelevant portions generally could not be redacted from documents that also contained relevant and responsive information, the proposed redactions were not sensitive or confidential, and some would change the meaning of the remaining text.

Ruling

The court ordered Match to produce all materials corresponding to the disputed privilege-log entries listed in this order and in the April 19, 2024 order by May 8, 2024. It specifically ordered production of items 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, and denied Match’s request to redact item 19. The opinion text provided does not separately state a disposition for every numbered entry appearing in the initial list.