SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-02637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In SM Kids v. Google, Judge Aaron vacated an earlier privilege ruling and ordered further submissions on attorney-client privilege.
SM Kids, LLC and the Defendants, including Google LLC, were affected by the vacatur of the earlier privilege opinion and the schedule for additional submissions and a conference.
What happened
In SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC, the court revisited an earlier opinion about attorney-client privilege in communications involving a client’s agents and certain documents.
Defendants objected to the earlier opinion and cited language from a New York Court of Appeals decision that the privilege may protect communications involving third parties when their presence is necessary to enable attorney-client communication.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron vacated the February 23 opinion, allowed Plaintiff to submit additional arguments and evidence, allowed Defendants to respond, and scheduled a telephone conference about further privilege issues.
The detailed version
- SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC · No. 1:18-cv-02637
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
The court had issued an Opinion and Order on February 23, 2021, addressing attorney-client privilege. On March 9, Defendants timely objected and cited language from the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. concerning when communications involving agents or employees of an attorney or client retain their confidential and privileged character. The court stated that it had relied on other parts of Ambac but had overlooked the language cited by Defendants.
What the Court Ordered
The court concluded that additional submissions were necessary concerning attorney-client privilege as applied to client agents and certain exemplar documents. It vacated the February 23 Opinion. Plaintiff was allowed to submit, by March 17, 2021, legal arguments concerning the Ambac language and evidence or legal arguments explaining why agents’ presence was required to enable attorney-client communication for the listed documents. Defendants were allowed to respond by March 22, 2021.
The court also ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference on March 11, 2021, to discuss additional privilege issues that could be addressed in an amended opinion and order. Judge Stewart D. Aaron stated that the court intended to address the overarching privilege issues together so that any objections to the privilege rulings could be made and decided at one time.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.