Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 1 of 4
S N I G E R Ar·r¤gNEy5 PATENTS LITIEATIDN TECHNOLOGY UNE METRDFDLITAN EDLIARE
AY t-Aw "'”’~¤E'“"‘*"’(5` ':¤"""’E”T5 ANTWRUST éii:1-Fligiigs, Mtssczuni asmz
314-231-54UD V
314-23l -4342 F
January 3, 2006
Steven Lieberman, Esq.
Sharon L. Davis, Esq.
Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: T rilegiant Privilege Log
Dear Steve and Sharon:
The Privilege Document Log submitted by Trilegiant dated December 2, 2005, has a
number of shortcomings. ln light of the discovery schedule in this case, we would like to have
the log supplemented as quickly as possible, but not later than January 16, 2006. Attachment A
lists by group and entry number, the specific log entries that require supplementation.
Group One entries mainly involve documents written or received by Peter McGonagle or
by Todd Siegel. Although both are attomeys for Trilegiant, their corporate titles disclose that
they have corporate and business responsibilities in addition to legal duties. Throughout the log,
the listed entries are described with nearly identical phrases followed by a short, uninformative
topic line. These descriptions do not provide sufficient factual detail for us to determine whether
withholding the document on the basis of privilege is warranted or not. Since establishing
privilege is an obligation of the proponent, we ask that you supplement the log in sufficient detail
that we can be certain that the communication in question is in fact a confidential communication
between lawyer and client versus a business communication. A few entries in this group are
documents prepared by your law firm, but no attomey client privilege is invoked. This also
requires supplementation.
Group Two entries are communications that were neither prepared by nor sent to an
attomey. The descriptions are formulaic and too general to establish whether a privilege claim is
appropriate or not.
Group Three entries involve documents that predate Trilegiant's ownership of the patents
in suit. In some instances, the documents predate issuance of the patents. We do not believe that
Trilegiant has any privilege claim over these documents and we ask that they be produced
immediately.
Ex. 1

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 4
Steven Lieberman, Esq.
Sharon L. Davis, Esq.
Rothwell, Figg, Emst & Manbeck, P.C.
January 3, 2006
Page Two
Group Four entries are mainly notes written by Peter McGonagle. They are not addressed
to anyone. They are described in formulaic language that does not provide sufficient detail from
which to determine whether privilege is being properly invoked or not. We ask that you
supplement these entries with additional facts to substantiate your claim of privilege.
Group Five entries involve communications with third parties, i.e. persons other than
Trilegiant and its attorneys. Some entries predate Trilegiant’s acquisition of the patents and
should be tumed over immediately. As to the others, nothing in the formulaic descriptions
supports a joint attorney—client relationship between these third parties and Trilegiant or a work
product doctrine privilege. Except where immediate production is requested, we ask that you
y supplement these entries so that we can determine whether the privilege claim is warranted or
not.
Group Six entries are a particularly troubling category. E—mail strings and documents
with attachments are bundled without description of the individual component documents. As a
result, it is impossible to determine whether privilege attaches to the entire bundle, just to some
of the component documents or to none of them. We ask that you supplement your log to provide
complete particulars of each component document being withheld and the basis for the
withholding.
Category Seven documents consist of documents produced to us in redacted form. We
assume the redactions relate to portions of a document that are being withheld on the basis of
some claim of privilege. No redacted documents were identified on the privilege log. Please
supplement to cure this irregularity.
If you will be unable to supplement your privilege log by January 16, 2006, as requested,
please contact me immediately to discuss when you will be able to supplement. I am very
concemed with the looming expert reports deadline and the end of discovery.
_ Sincerely,
David W. Harlan
DWH:mag

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 3 of 4
Attachment A
Trilegiant Privilege Log
Group One
The following log entries are Group One documents.
26 35 50 86 142 255-56 323-24 386 489 534
27 39 60 89 158 257-58 326-327 412-14 491 535-36
28 40 61 91 213 265-66 329 415 492 545-546
29 41 62 97 215 288-290 335-37 448-49 519
30 42 63 109 226 311 345 474 520
31 43 79 112 228-32 315 349 483-84 521-24
31-32 44 81 113-115 235 317 350 486 525
33 45 83 127 238 318-22 361 487 526-32
34 47 84 128 246 321-322 366 488 533
Group Two
The following log entries are Group Two documents.
3 28 40 80 113- 142 161 224-25 307 375-77
4 29 41 90 115 143 163-65 236 309-10 368-69
5 30 42 91 119-24 144-48 168 237 313-14 378
6 31 43 95 134 149 172-75 239-45 316 381-84
7 32 44 102 135 154 180-82 247-53 322 419
8 33 45 105 136 156 198-99 255-56 340-44 422-23
9 34 48 107 137 157 202 269 348 31
10-25 35 56 110 140 159 214 286-87 356-65
27 39 59 111 141 160 220-21 291- 367
Group Three
The following log entries are Group Three documents.
111 129-32 133 374 382-84 451-482 493-518 537-44 535-36
*CONF1DENT1A1.*
ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION;
ATTORNEY OPINION WORK PRODUCT

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 4 of 4
Group Four
The following log entries are Group Four documents.
385 388-95 407 416-17 422-23 428-32 441 448
387 398-400 411 419 424-26 437-39 445
Group Five
The following log entries are Group Five documents.
127 213 468-69 459-60 464
Group Six
The following log entries are Group Six documents.
1 54 81 105 143 184-189 237 289-90 356
2 31 55 56 83 107 150 190-99 239-41 313 361
3 32 57 86 107 151 191 244-47 308-11 401 -02
3 33 60-62 87 108 152 201 249-50 315-16 405
4 36 61 88 110 153-54 203 252-53 318 409
5 39 63 89 112 155 206 254 320-22 411
6 41 66-70 90 118 156 207 255-56 323-24 415
7 42 72 91 125 157 208-211 261 326 418
8 43 73 92 134 158 217-18 262 328 420
9 45 74 96 135 159 220-21 263 331 420-21
11 46 75 97 136 162 223-25 265 333 433-34
(not 47 77 100 137 165-67 228-32 266-73 335-37 435
19-20) 48 78 101 138 169 233 275-80 339 442
13-25 52 79 102- 140 176-79 235 283-84 346 491
28 53 80 03 142 181-82 236 287 348-49 49-51
*CONF1DENT1AL"
ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION;
ATTORNEY OPINION WORK PRODUCT

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-2

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-2

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-2

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-2

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 4 of 4