Affinity Credit Union v. Apple Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 11/25/25 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER RE APPLE’S
PRIVILEGE DESIGNATIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 303
On November 25, 2025, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding the sufficiency
of Defendant Apple’s document production and withholding of documents based on privilege, as
well as the sufficiency of its August 22, 2025 privilege log. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 303.)
In sum, Plaintiff contends that Apple has withheld more than 40,000 documents based on a
facially deficient and untimely privilege log. (Joint Letter at 1.) The parties attached excerpts of
Apple’s privilege log. Notably, the privilege log does not comport with this court’s civil standing
order, which requires that
[t]he privilege log shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify
separately for each document or for each category of similarly
situated documents:
(a) The title and description of the document, including number of
pages or Bates-number range;
(b) The subject matter addressed in the document;
(c) The identity and position of its author(s);
(d) The identity and position of all addressees and recipients;
(e) The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s)
on which it was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s);
(f) The steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the communication,
including affirmation that no unauthorized persons have received the
communication; and
(g) The specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or
protected. Failure to furnish this information promptly may be
deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection.
Case 4:22-cv-04174-JSW Document 313 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
(Judge Westmore’s Civil Standing Order ¶ 20.) Thus, the parties are ordered to meet and confer
regarding Apple’s forthcoming amendment of the privilege log to include all of the information
required in the Court’s civil standing order and to ensure compliance with the recent ruling in Epic
Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 161 F.4th 1162 (9th Cir. 2025). Moreover, to the extent that Apple
contends that Plaintiffs waived categorical objections to the privilege log based on a sample log
that was previously discussed, that argument is not well taken, because each entry must be
evaluated separately. (See Joint Letter at 2, 4.)
Additionally, the Court is concerned that Apple may be over-designating documents, or
portions thereof, as privileged. In requesting that redacted documents be included in the privilege
log, Plaintiffs attached Exhibit A to the joint letter, which consists of two produced documents that
appear identical except for one is redacted based on an assertion of attorney-client privilege and
the other is not. (See Joint Letter, Ex. A.) While Apple’s contention that the exhibit is
demonstrative and violates the undersigned’s standing order is well taken, the Court finds the
redaction concerning. (See Joint Letter at 5 n. 2.) Accordingly, the Court will require that redacted
documents be included in the privilege log.
Finally, Plaintiffs request that either the Court find that Apple’s repeated failure to
substantiate its privilege claims constitute waiver or that a special master be appointed to test
Apple’s privilege claims through in camera review. Given that Plaintiffs raise high-level
challenges to tens of thousands of entries, and that the Court lacks the resources to resolve such a
dispute in a timely fashion, a special master appears warranted. Thus, the parties are ordered to
meet and confer regarding the appointment of a special master for all discovery. Should they agree
that appointment is appropriate, they shall file a request for appointment with the presiding judge.
If the parties decline to seek the appointment of a special master, Apple shall serve an
amended privilege log that complies with the Court’s civil standing order, and includes entries for
all redacted documents, within 21 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2026 __________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:22-cv-04174-JSW Document 313 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 2