Securitypoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
April 16, 2019, Filed
Motion to compel; Privilege logs; RCFC 26(b)(5)(A)(ii); Attorney-client privilege; Waiver; Common interest doctrine; Work product doctrine. Pending now is defendant's second renewed motion to compel documents withheld as privileged, filed on February 26, 2019. This motion again concerns defendant's attempt to probe plaintiff's finances, valuation of its intellectual property, and any outside investors in SecurityPoint or funders of the litigation. We have previously protected the disclosure of plaintiff's litigation funding agreements based on the representation of counsel that none of them include "any transfer of rights or interest in enforcement of the patent or management of the litigation." Tr. 21 (Nov. 1, 2017 hearing) (ECF No. 303). At that same hearing, plaintiff agreed to produce documents related to ownership and valuation documents related to an outside investor in SecurityPoint, Raptor. In July 2018, as part [*2] of a sanction against plaintiff for failure to fully produce Raptor documents, we ordered plaintiff to produce all remaining documents related to Raptor and any other outside investors in SecurityPoint or potential outside investors "to the extent that they are not privileged." Order Granting Mot. For Sanctions 6 (July 17, 2018) (ECF No. 359). We also ordered plaintiff to maintain a privilege log for all documents withheld and to produce it to defendant.
Those productions have taken place, and the period for discovery has ended. Defendant, however, timely filed a motion challenging the sufficiency of the privilege logs produced by plaintiff and asking for unredacted copies of certain documents. As a remedy for the alleged insufficient logs, the government requests that the court review a representative sample in camera to confirm what defendant believes are inappropriate claims of privilege. Defendant's motion names 1465 entries in those logs as problematic. By the time of oral argument, defendant clarified that it was maintaining its challenge as to only documents appearing in that list that do not have an attorney listed in the sender or receiver box of the log; the rest of their [*3] challenges have been abandoned. There are two noted exceptions that receive special treatment in defendant's motion: 1) Oxford Valuation Partners Report; and 2) The Prepaid Forward Purchase Agreement. We begin with the more general issue of the sufficiency of plaintiff's privilege logs.
I. SecurityPoint's LogsRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Claims LEXIS 341 *
SECURITYPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Notice: NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Prior History: SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 1, 2013 U.S. Claims LEXIS 95 (Feb. 20, 2013)
logs, advice, valuation, disclosure, withheld, investors, redacted, patent, sender
Civil Procedure, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Privileged Communications, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Evidence, Privileges, Attorney-Client Privilege, Waiver, Privileged Communications, Work Product Doctrine, Scope of Protection