United States v. Stratics Networks Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint discovery statement regarding Atlas' Amended Privilege Log and Response Regarding Document Production. The court ordered Atlas to produce a second Amended Privilege Log by April 30, 2025, finding the current log insufficient, and found the Response Regarding Document Production compliant.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Atlas to produce a second Amended Privilege Log by April 30, 2025“Atlas must produce to plaintiff and the Court a second Amended Privilege Log that includes this information and otherwise complies with Section IX of the Court’s Chambers Rules on or before April 30, 2025.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a party asserting privilege bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability and non-waiver. The order cites specific deficiencies in the log (missing parties, authors, addressees, relationships, and attachments) that prevent assessment of the privilege claim. Given this is the second order for amendment, the court's insistence on specific details is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the burden of proof for privilege. |
Finding Atlas' Response Regarding Document Production compliant“Atlas’ Response Regarding Document Production complies with the Court’s March 7, 2025 Order. Doc. No. 139.” | unsure The court states that the response complies with a prior order. Without the text of the prior order or the response itself, the specific legal basis is not detailed, but the finding is a procedural determination based on the court's own prior directive. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies specific deficiencies in the privilege log that prevent the court and opposing party from assessing the privilege claim. It correctly cites Ninth Circuit authority regarding the burden of proof for privilege and the risk of waiver for insufficient logging. The order provides a clear deadline and specific requirements for the amended log. The finding regarding the document production response is brief but consistent with the court's role in enforcing its own orders.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 23-cv-313-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING JOINT 13 v. DISCOVERY STATEMENT 14 STRATIC NETWORKS, INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 21, 2025, plaintiff, the United States of America, and defendants Atlas 18 Investment Ventures LLC, Tek Ventures, LLC, Eric Peterson, Todd DiRoberto, and Atlas 19 Marketing Partners, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Atlas”) lodged a discovery letter and 20 exhibits, pursuant to the undersigned’s Chambers Rules. Doc. No. 158. After review of that 21 submission, the Court ORDERS: 22 I. Atlas’ Amended Privilege Log 23 Atlas’ March 20, 2025 Amended Privilege Log is so lacking in detail the Court 24 cannot assess the applicability of the claimed privileges. It also still does not meet the 25 Court’s minimum requirements. See Mag. J. Karen S. Crawford Civ. Chambers R. IX. 26 (S.D. Cal., Mar. 26, 2025). Necessary but missing information includes: 27 1) the party(ies) asserting the privilege; 28 1 2) the documents’ author(s), and the relationship of this individual to the party(ies) 2 asserting the privilege; 3 3) the primary addressee(s), and the relationship of these individual(s) to the 4 party(ies) asserting the privilege as well as the document’s author; 5 4) any secondary addressee(s), and the relationship of these individual(s) to the 6 party(ies) asserting the privilege as well as the document’s author; 7 5) any other individual(s) to whom the document was disseminated, and the 8 relationship of that person(s) to the party(ies) asserting the privilege as well as 9 the document’s author; and 10 6) an identification and description of any attachments. 11 12 Atlas must produce to plaintiff and the Court a second Amended Privilege Log that 13 includes this information and otherwise complies with Section IX of the Court’s Chambers 14 Rules on or before April 30, 2025. 15 This is the second time the Court has ordered Atlas to amend their privilege log 16 because they did not comply with the Court’s minimum requirements or describe “[t]he 17 nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things ... in a manner that ... will 18 enable other parties to assess the claim of privilege.” Doc. Nos. 138 (citation omitted), 139. 19 The Court, therefore, takes this opportunity to remind Atlas “[t]he party asserting an 20 evidentiary privilege has the burden to demonstrate that the privilege applies to the 21 information in question.” Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). 22 This burden includes demonstrating the lack of a waiver. United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 23 988, 999–1000 (9th Cir. 2002). “[F]ailure to provide sufficient information to support 24 the privilege may constitute waiver of the privilege.” Saldana v. Roberts, No. 24-CV- 25 00895-DSF-AJR, 2025 WL 675429, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025) (emphasis added) 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 II. Atlas’ Response Regarding Document Production 2 Atlas’ Response Regarding Document Production complies with the Court’s March 3 ||7, 2025 Order. Doc. No. 139. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED 5 Dated: April 24, 2025 Me ) 6 VL LL fa 7 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28