Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:16-cv-01220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Judge Menendez granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel privileged emails, ordering disclosure of three email portions.
The plaintiffs and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. were directly affected. LG must disclose two emails from the 2015 sample and one redacted portion of a 2017 email; most of the other sampled communications may remain withheld. The parties must apply the ruling to the remaining 22 disputed documents.
What happened
Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a consumer class action alleging that LG and Best Buy overstated the refresh rates of LG televisions. The plaintiffs asked the court to require LG to produce 31 documents that LG had withheld or redacted as protected by attorney-client privilege.
The court ruled that communications between LG and employees of affiliated advertising company HS Ad America could remain privileged when those employees functioned like LG employees and needed the legal advice to perform their marketing duties. The court found that most of the sampled emails transmitted or clarified legal advice, but that some emails described marketing decisions without revealing legal advice.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel. LG must disclose two emails from one 2015 email thread and one redacted portion of a 2017 email, while the other sampled communications may remain withheld; the parties must apply the ruling to the remaining documents.
The detailed version
- Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. · No. 0:16-cv-01220
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 4, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs brought a putative consumer class action against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc., alleging that marketing materials falsely represented the refresh rates of LG high-definition televisions. The plaintiffs claimed that the alleged misrepresentations caused consumers to pay more for the televisions. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was pending.
The plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents that LG and Best Buy had withheld as privileged. After the motion was narrowed, the plaintiffs stopped challenging documents on Best Buy’s privilege log and limited the dispute to 31 documents on LG’s privilege log. The parties submitted nine sample exhibits for the court’s private review of the documents.
The disputed materials involved communications between LG employees and employees of HS Ad America, an affiliated but legally separate advertising company that provided marketing services to LG. The 2015 sample included three emails between non-lawyer employees. The 2017 samples included partially redacted email threads in which LG and HS Ad America employees discussed changes to marketing materials concerning the refresh rates of TruMotion-branded televisions.
Legal Standard and Analysis
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made to obtain or provide legal advice. For corporations, the privilege may cover communications among employees who need to know the advice because of their duties. The court also considered whether HS Ad America employees were the “functional equivalent” of LG employees—that is, whether their close working relationship and responsibilities made them equivalent to LG employees for privilege purposes.
The court found that HS Ad America employees handling LG’s marketing and advertising functions were functional equivalents of LG employees. The court relied on evidence that some worked full time in LG offices, used LG email addresses, worked alongside LG employees, and sought legal advice from LG’s legal department about LG’s advertising and marketing. The court also found that the employees involved in the sample emails had a need to know the legal advice because they were responsible for the subject matter of the communications. Their inclusion therefore did not waive LG’s attorney-client privilege.
The court distinguished between communications that transmitted or revealed legal advice and communications that merely described business decisions or actions taken after receiving advice. It concluded that most of the challenged communications were privileged, but that some did not reveal legal advice or the plaintiffs’ request for legal advice.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Documents Improperly Withheld as Privileged.
For the 2015 emails in in camera Exhibit 1, the court ruled that the first April 6 email could remain withheld because it conveyed the substance of legal advice. The court ordered LG to produce the April 15 email because it discussed how certain televisions should be marketed without mentioning or referencing legal advice or pending litigation. The court also ordered production of the middle April 6 email because it was an essentially empty forwarding message with no substantive content. The order required LG to disclose those two emails within 14 days of the order, or within 14 days after any District Court order resolving objections.
For the 2017 emails in in camera Exhibits 2 through 8, the court found the redacted portions protected by attorney-client privilege and ruled that LG need not disclose them. For Exhibit 9, the court found that one redacted portion of a February 15, 2017 message did not reference or reveal legal advice and ordered LG to disclose it on the same schedule as the compelled 2015 emails. The court ordered the parties to work together in good faith to apply its ruling to the remaining 22 disputed documents and directed them to electronically file the supplemental materials and declarations on which the court relied.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.