Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 200-17 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`Exhibit Q
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 200-17 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`Eric Speckhard
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Eric Speckhard
`Friday, June 18, 2021 12:27 PM
`'Rodrigues, Ruben J.'
`BOST - F - Philips - Fitbit; Fitbit Philips DC Service
`RE: Philips v. Fitbit - June 11, 2021 Supplemental Privilege Log
`
`Hi Ruben,
`
`
`Thank you for confirming that Philips spoke with the attorneys identified in the descriptions provided in Philips’s
`log. Fitbit does not intend to move to compel emails on the basis that they do not contain advice from the individuals
`referenced therein.
`
`
`Fitbit does intend to move to compel, however, emails solely between Dutch patent agents or non-attorney employees
`that do not purport to relay the legal advice of an attorney. Additionally, Fitbit will move to compel or ask for in camera
`review of communications that it believes were made primarily or solely for business purposes and contain primarily
`business advice.
`
`
`Regarding Philips’s position that the date of any litigation hold is irrelevant and/or privileged, we obviously disagree.
`First, such information is responsive to Interrogatory No. 3, which asked Philips to identify the date at which it first
`became aware of or formed a belief as to Fitbit’s alleged infringement. Philips’s implementation or lack of
`implementation of a litigation hold in relation to this case is clearly relevant to whether and when it formed a belief
`regarding potential infringement and developed a reasonable anticipation of litigation. Second, we have reviewed
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. 13-C-01317-EJD, 2014 WL 4088201, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014). That case
`held that a “litigation hold notice itself” was privileged, not that the date upon which the notice was sent was privileged.
`Indeed, the date itself is a bare fact and is not subject to attorney-client privilege.
`
`
`Finally, we will send redacted versions of the logs to you later today so that you can review. We have excerpted, Philips’s
`response to Rog 2 from the exhibit, which now includes Philips’s full response to Rog 3 and partial responses to Rogs 1
`and 11 (which are included on the cover page and the page containing the response to Rog 3).
`
`
`Best,
`Eric
`
`
`From: Rodrigues, Ruben J. <RRodrigues@foley.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 10:47 PM
`To: Eric Speckhard <ESpeckhard@desmaraisllp.com>
`Cc: BOST - F - Philips - Fitbit <BOSTFPhilipsFitbit@foley.com>; Fitbit Philips DC Service
`<FitbitPhilipsDCService@desmaraisllp.com>
`Subject: [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.
`
`
`Thanks Erik,
`
`
`1
`
`