Fitzsimmons

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RISING TIDE I, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01232-TSH

8 Plaintiffs,

DISCOVERY ORDER

9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 134, 136 10 MICHAEL FITZSIMMONS, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 In ECF No. 129, the Court ordered Latham & Watkins – Delivery Agent’s former counsel 14 – to produce documents responsive to Defendants’ subpoenas in this and the related action Abdo v. 15 Fitzsimmons, No. 17-851. The Court found that there was a presumption that the attorney-client 16 privilege held by Delivery Agent was no longer viable given that the company had ceased to 17 function. Delivery Agent’s Trustee had indicated that he did not intend to waive any applicable 18 privilege but failed to provide a basis to believe a privilege existed. 19 That order largely resolves the current discovery letter briefs concerning similar subpoenas 20 Plaintiffs have served on Bergeson and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. See ECF Nos. 134, 136. 21 However, Bergeson and Orrick have some additional arguments as well. Bergeson contests…