Entangled Media, LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted Dropbox, Inc.'s motion to amend the scheduling order and compel Entangled Media, LLC to supplement its privilege log and produce allegedly waived privileged materials. The court found subject matter waiver concerning communications and materials involving patent prosecuting attorney Dawn-Marie Bey that bear on inventorship and ordered production of specified materials, including an executed termination agreement if located. The court also ordered Entangled Media to amend its supplemental privilege log and provided for in camera review of representative documents shared with third parties.

Holdings

1. Dropbox did not show good cause to obtain relief from the deadline for challenging deficiencies in privilege logs served in August, September, and October 2024.
2. Dropbox could belatedly challenge the withholding of documents listed on the November 22, 2024 supplemental privilege log insofar as the challenge concerned materials prepared by, or communications exchanged with, Dawn-Marie Bey and alleged subject-matter waiver.
3. Entangled Media waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection for materials prepared by, or communications exchanged with, Dawn-Marie Bey concerning matters bearing on inventorship of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents.
4. Entangled Media must amend its November 22, 2024 supplemental privilege log to include, to the extent available, the information necessary to establish a prima facie claim of privilege or protection for the disputed entries.
5. Entangled Media bore the burden of establishing that a privilege or protection applied and could not indiscriminately label documents disclosed to third parties as work product.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dropbox showed good cause to pursue a discovery motion filed more than two weeks after the deadline.
2. Whether Entangled Media waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over materials prepared by or communications exchanged with its patent prosecuting attorney concerning inventorship and related patent-conception issues.
3. Whether Entangled Media was required to amend its supplemental privilege log to provide information sufficient to establish a prima facie claim of privilege or protection.
4. Whether documents shared with third parties could remain protected and, if withheld, should be submitted for representative in camera review.

Disposition

other