`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 794 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB No. 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`MELANIE L. MAYER (admitted pro hac vice)
`mmayer@fenwick.com
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`RAVI R. RANGANATH (CSB No. 272981)
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`WITHHELD BY PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, AS INVITED
`BY THE COURT IN ITS ORDER,
`DATED OCTOBER 31, 2022 (DKT. 793)
`
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants,
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER TO PRODUCE
`ALL WITHHELD DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 794 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`The Court ordered PersonalWeb to produce documents without objection in response to
`Amazon’s post-judgment discovery and respond to interrogatories. (Dkt. 704.)
`Amazon moved to compel compliance with the Court’s order because PersonalWeb asserted
`
`privilege objections that the Court had already deemed waived, noting in its motion that PersonalWeb
`
`had produced no additional documents and supplemented no interrogatory responses since August
`
`2021. (Dkt. 790.)
`
`As of the filing of Amazon’s motion, PersonalWeb had reviewed only approximately 200
`
`documents for production through October 7, 2022 and reviewed approximately 1,500 documents
`
`through October 18, 2022. (Dkt. 791 at 1.) Amazon represents that PersonalWeb also served a privilege
`
`log of documents withheld based on this manual review on October 25, 2022.
`
`The parties then conferred and entered a stipulation where they agreed to use a first set of search
`
`terms to identify responsive documents, and a second set of search terms to screen out documents
`
`subject to withholding based on PersonalWeb’s disputed privilege claims (“privilege screen”). (Id. at
`
`2-4.) The stipulation provided that PersonalWeb would produce all responsive documents except for
`
`those that hit on the privilege screen, which it would manually review pending the Court’s ruling on its
`
`privilege assertions. (Id.)
`On October 31, 2022, the Court ruled on Amazon’s motion to compel. It found that
`PersonalWeb had “waived its attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection regarding
`
`the subject discovery and is to provide complete responses and a complete document production.” (Dkt.
`
`793 at 7.) The Court acknowledged the parties’ stipulation, and further stated that it “expect[ed] the
`
`Parties will be able to incorporate this Order and proceed with production of all responsive materials in
`
`a timely manner.” (Id.) If the parties were unable to do so, the Court invited Amazon to “submit a
`
`proposed order to the Court with a deadline for completion of production as ordered herein.” (Id.)
`
`Amazon represents to the Court the following:
`
`1. The parties have met and conferred regarding production of the remaining responsive
`
`documents that PersonalWeb withheld, including those based on the privilege screen
`
`described in the stipulation.
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER TO PRODUCE
`ALL WITHHELD DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 794 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`2. Amazon contends that the documents identified as responsive based on the agreed search
`
`terms but withheld based on the privilege screen should now be produced, as the Court has
`
`ruled that PersonalWeb’s basis to withhold them was waived.
`
`3. The parties have a separate discovery dispute concerning responding to Amazon’s
`
`interrogatories as ordered by the Court. PersonalWeb agreed in September 2021 to
`
`supplement its original deficient responses but has not done so to date.
`
`4. PersonalWeb has taken the position that it will only produce the privilege screen documents
`
`based on the agreed search terms as Amazon requests if Amazon agrees that PersonalWeb
`
`may supplement the interrogatory responses based only on the present recollection of its
`
`principals (including Mr. Bermeister, an individual who the Court previously found
`
`submitted a false declaration under oath), without conducting a reasonable inquiry,
`
`including consulting its records to the extent necessary to answer.
`
`5. Unless Amazon agrees to these terms concerning the interrogatory dispute, PersonalWeb
`
`has stated it will instead manually review each of the documents withheld based on the
`
`privilege screen. PersonalWeb has claimed that it is withholding approximately 57,000
`
`documents based on the privilege screen. PersonalWeb’s pace for manual review, as
`
`described above, has ranged from fewer than 50 documents per week to approximately 750
`
`documents a week. At that pace, PersonalWeb will not be able to produce the withheld
`
`documents for months, let alone make that production (and conduct the additional search
`
`of documents in the possession of Stubbs Alderton) in a timely manner as the Court ordered.
`Accordingly, the Court further GRANTS Amazon’s motion as follows:
`PersonalWeb is ordered to produce all documents currently withheld based on the waived
`privilege claims by November 10, 2022, including: (1) the documents identified on the October 25,
`2022 privilege log; and (2) the documents previously withheld based on the privilege screen.
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: ______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER TO PRODUCE
`ALL WITHHELD DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`
` SUSAN VAN KEULEN
` United States Magistrate Judge
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`2
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`