Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially denied Epidemic Sound’s motion to reopen discovery in connection with purportedly privileged communications involving Meta and third-party distributor-indemnitors. The court ordered Meta to produce a privilege log for certain relevant communications by November 20, 2025, denied Meta’s motion to seal portions of its opposition and an exhibit, and denied Meta’s request for fees.

Holdings

1. Discovery should not be reopened generally because Meta showed that the relevant post-cutoff communications had been produced in redacted form and were properly protected as attorney work product.
2. The sharing of the communications with the third-party indemnitor's counsel did not waive work-product protection where the common-interest doctrine applied.
3. Meta had to produce, by November 20, 2025, a log of any pre-April 30, 2025 communications relevant to the recently produced communications that it was withholding as privileged.
4. Meta's motion to seal the highlighted portions of its opposition and Exhibit M was denied because its declaration did not connect the requested redactions to confidential information and Exhibit M was a public court transcript.

Questions Presented

1. Whether fact discovery should be reopened to require Meta to produce or log communications withheld under the common-interest doctrine or attorney work-product protection.
2. Whether Meta's communications with a third-party indemnitor's counsel were properly redacted as attorney work product.
3. Whether Meta's opposition and Exhibit M should be sealed.
4. Whether Meta was entitled to attorney fees.

Disposition

other