Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 200-16 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 2
`Case 1:19-cv-11586—FDS Document 200-16 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`EXHIBIT P
`
`EXHIBIT P
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 200-16 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`Eric Speckhard
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Rodrigues, Ruben J. <RRodrigues@foley.com>
`Thursday, June 17, 2021 10:22 PM
`Eric Speckhard
`BOST - F - Philips - Fitbit; Fitbit Philips DC Service
`[Ext] RE: Philips v. Fitbit - June 11, 2021 Supplemental Privilege Log
`
`**EXTERNAL EMAIL** This email originated from outside the company. Do not click on any link unless you recognize the sender
`and have confidence the content is safe.
`
`
`Hi Eric,
`
`The specific narratives were developed upon conferring with participants in the messages, as well as with some of the
`attorneys identified there in (including Mr. Schilowitz), and they reflect our understanding based both on those
`conferences as well as the contents of the communications themselves (some of which may refer the specific attorneys
`identified). Regardless, for any challenged entry, we intend to provide a declaration from one or more of the
`participants in any communication and/or any one of the attorneys referenced to further support the claim, and reserve
`the right to seek fees from Fitbit for that expense as it seems Fitbit intends to proceed with a number of frivolous
`challenges that will do nothing more than to generate unnecessary work.
`
`We have confirmed that the logged material, to the extent relevant to this matter, reflects privileged legal advice and
`not what you characterize as “business advice”. Indeed since the service of our original privilege log we have carefully
`considered this issue, and have in fact produced many documents that, upon closer inspection, could be characterized
`more as “business advice” rather than legal advice. Fitbit’s counsel has those documents. To the extent the logged
`communications contain non-privileged information, it is material not relevant to this case (e.g. concerns unrelated
`patents or unrelated transactions), for which we see no basis for producing redacted copies and undergoing to effort
`and expense that that would entail.
`
`With respect to your request that Philips identify the date of any document hold letters concerning disputes with Fitbit,
`we don’t see a basis for Fitbit’s request. Discovery has closed and the request is not responsive to any Fitbit
`interrogatory, is not relevant to any issue, and it is further not information that Fitbit is entitled to in discovery. See
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. 13-C-01317-EJD, 2014 WL 4088201, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (wherein
`Fitbit’s parent, Google, successfully prevented discovery on litigation hold notices, including “the dates the notices were
`circulated,” on the basis of privilege). Regardless, to the extent Fitbit intends to argue that the hold notice is somehow
`relevant to Philips’s claim of work product protection—it is not—as reflected in Philips’s extensive document production
`of Mr. Tol’s e-mails dating back to 2015, documents and materials relevant to the subject matter of this dispute (as well
`as the disputes in Europe) have been retained and Fitbit has never suggested otherwise.
`
`While we don’t believe we’ve really received a currently accurate or detailed understanding of the basis on which
`specific entries will be challenged in the forthcoming motion, we don’t plan to raise the lack of a meaningful meet and
`confer as part of any opposition to the motion.
`
`Regards,
`
`-Ruben
`
`
`
`1
`
`