SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-02637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In SM Kids v. Google, Judge Schofield paused privilege disputes pending objections and denied defendants’ letter motion without prejudice.
SM Kids, Google, and third parties whose privilege logs or documents were involved; further privilege-related production and disputes were paused pending Judge Schofield’s ruling on defendants’ objections.
What happened
SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC concerned the parties’ disagreements over whether documents and communications listed on privilege logs should be withheld from discovery. The parties submitted a joint letter describing their positions after an earlier court order addressing privilege issues.
Google argued that many communications involving business associates, former company employees, relatives, and other people were not protected and should be produced. SM Kids said some communications remained protected and agreed to produce various documents after reviewing the earlier order. SM Kids also asked the court to pause privilege-related production while Google challenged that order.
Judge Schofield’s ruling on Google’s objections must come before further privilege disputes are resolved or related documents are produced. The court also denied defendants’ letter motion without prejudice and set deadlines for the parties to meet and confer after Judge Schofield rules.
The detailed version
- SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC · No. 1:18-cv-02637
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
This filing addressed discovery disputes over attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Those protections can allow a party to withhold communications seeking or providing legal advice, or materials prepared for litigation. SM Kids and Google submitted a joint letter describing their positions after the court’s February 23, 2021 Opinion and Order concerning SM Kids’ privilege logs and third-party privilege logs.
The parties disagreed about communications involving several people and groups, including Matt Mazer, Allan Cohen, Bungalow and Salmansohn, former employees and directors of Stelor Productions, Roger Shiffman, Ted Koenig, relatives and associates of Stephen Garchik, and others. Google argued that many of the communications were not privileged because the people involved were not agents, joint clients, or participants in a shared legal interest. Google also challenged some work-product assertions and requested additional private judicial review of selected documents. SM Kids disputed those arguments and agreed to produce various documents after reconsidering its privilege assertions.
Parties’ Requests
Google stated that it intended to object under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to portions of the February 23 order. Google also renewed challenges to certain privilege-log entries and requested additional private judicial review of two categories of documents: communications between non-lawyers and communications authored by a non-lawyer and sent to multiple recipients, including a lawyer.
SM Kids argued that Google had raised several new issues without adequate time for a further meet-and-confer process. SM Kids asked the court to stay, or pause, privilege-related production and disputes until Judge Schofield resolved Google’s objections. SM Kids also opposed additional private review as unnecessary in light of the earlier order and the court’s prior review of documents.
Ruling
The endorsement states that, because defendants intended to file objections to the February 23 Opinion and Order, any further resolution of privilege issues, privilege-related document production, and privilege-related discussions between the parties would await Judge Schofield’s ruling on those objections.
The court denied defendants’ letter motion without prejudice. After Judge Schofield rules, the parties must meet and confer in good faith within five days. If disputes remain, defendants must file a letter motion within seven days after that initial meeting, after which the court will set a briefing schedule.
Effect of the Order
This order governed the timing and handling of discovery disputes. It did not decide the underlying claims in the case or finally determine all of the challenged privilege questions. It postponed further privilege-related action pending the ruling on defendants’ objections.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.