GMA Accessories, Inc. v. HMY Jewelry, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-11126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
GMA Accessories v. HMY Jewelry: Judge Cronan declined GMA’s request, ruling HMY’s customer communications were protected by the common-interest doctrine.
GMA Accessories, Inc. could not obtain disclosure of the communications between HMY Jewelry, Inc. and the two unidentified customers. HMY and those customers retained the protection recognized by the court.
What happened
In GMA Accessories, Inc. v. HMY Jewelry, Inc., GMA argued that HMY improperly withheld communications with two customers by claiming legal privilege. GMA asked the court to require HMY to disclose them.
HMY argued that the communications were protected because HMY and the customers shared a legal interest and coordinated their response to GMA’s infringement-demand letters. After reviewing the communications and indemnification agreements privately, the court agreed with HMY.
Judge John P. Cronan declined GMA’s request to compel disclosure. He ruled that the communications were confidential, made to develop a joint legal strategy, and protected under the common-interest doctrine.
The detailed version
- GMA Accessories, Inc. v. HMY Jewelry, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-11126
- John Cronan
- May 11, 2021
Background
GMA filed a letter asserting that HMY had improperly withheld communications between HMY and two customers, referred to in the opinion as the “Customers,” based on legal privilege. HMY responded that the communications were protected by the common-interest doctrine. After a conference about this and other discovery disputes, the parties submitted additional letters. HMY also provided the disputed communications and its indemnification agreements with the Customers for the court’s private review.
Legal standard
The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney made to obtain or provide legal advice. The common-interest doctrine is an extension of that privilege, not a separate privilege. It can protect the sharing of privileged information with a third party when the parties share a common legal interest and cooperate on a common legal strategy. The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing that it applies.
Court’s analysis
The court found that HMY had shown the communications were privileged. The communications were primarily between the Customers’ in-house counsel and HMY, and they concerned how to respond to GMA’s demand letters and what actions should be taken. HMY and the Customers represented that the communications were confidential and were made with the expectation that they would not be disclosed.
The court also found that HMY and the Customers shared a common legal interest: the legal risk of infringement. GMA’s demand letters threatened litigation against all of the entities. The court further found that HMY and the Customers had agreed to pursue a joint legal strategy. The indemnification agreements, under which HMY agreed to protect the Customers against potential legal claims, supported the finding that the parties were cooperating.
Disposition
The court concluded that the common-interest doctrine applied and declined GMA’s request to compel disclosure of the communications.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.