Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney

Background

Lynne Freeman filed a letter motion seeking two forms of relief: an order requiring defendants to provide unredacted text messages for review by Freeman and her spouse, and a one-month extension of the March 31, 2023 fact-discovery deadline. Defendants opposed the motion.

The parties had previously disputed whether defendants had over-redacted text messages. After a court conference, they agreed that all text messages would be made available on a secure platform, without redactions, on an attorney’s-eyes-only basis. Defendants gave Freeman’s counsel access on January 31 and February 1, 2023, and extended the review period twice. The court stated that counsel had more than four weeks of access, while Freeman herself had continued to have access to the redacted messages.

Redactions

Freeman argued that messages between defendants Wolff and Kim about the Crave book series, sales reports, and publishing successes should not have been redacted. Defendants responded that the messages mainly concerned the stressful writing and publishing process and did not mention Freeman or her manuscript.

The court noted that courts in the district generally disfavor redactions based on relevance. It also explained that, because text messages can be informal and personal, the existing approach allowed redactions for sensitive personal matters or works not at issue, while giving Freeman’s counsel attorney-only access to unredacted messages as a check. The court found that the cited messages were at most marginally relevant but did not contain highly sensitive personal information or concern other works. It therefore ordered that such messages be unredacted. The court also expected the parties to cooperate in removing redactions that did not fit the permitted categories.

Discovery Extension and Disposition

Freeman’s counsel argued that he could not review the volume of unredacted messages alone and requested another month of fact discovery, including rescheduling depositions. Defendants opposed the request, reporting that the deposition schedule had been extensively negotiated and that rescheduling depositions, including depositions set in Texas and California, would be wasteful, inefficient, and prejudicial.

The court noted that the parties had originally received four months for fact discovery and had ultimately received approximately ten months after three extensions. It also noted that counsel had not raised problems reviewing the attorney-only messages when requesting a two-week extension in February. The court stated that staffing a federal copyright case with one lawyer was not a reason to grant a fourth extension and emphasized that disrupting the negotiated deposition schedule would be unfair.

The court ordered the scheduled depositions to proceed as agreed and denied Freeman’s request for another fact-discovery extension. It ordered defendants to keep the attorney-only platform available through March 31, 2023, and to review their redactions under the stated standards. It denied Freeman’s request to allow her and her spouse to review the attorney-only materials. The Clerk was requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 139 and 140.