ABN Corporation et al v. Groupe Pelm International Corporation et al

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
ABN CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GROUPE PELM INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00004-RFL (LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 191
The Court has reviewed the parties’ latest Discovery Letter (ECF No. 191) regarding
documents Plaintiffs withheld from production based on attorney-client privilege, and presumes
the parties’ familiarity with that letter and the previous Orders in this case addressing privilege.
E.g., ECF No. 184.
Much like for Defendant Brieant, substantial evidence indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel
Jimmie Williams served essentially as a business agent or conduit (or here, perhaps business
partner) during the subject transaction. Plaintiffs have made no prima facie showing of a
traditional attorney-client relationship with Williams—i.e., a relationship centered on legal advice
or legal representation—during their efforts to close the transaction prior to this litigation.
(Attorney Aaron McKown’s role is less clear from the present record, but only two of the logged
documents appear to involve McKown.)
Plaintiffs’ objections to relevance ring hollow when Plaintiffs identified the documents at
issue as responsive in their privilege log. The timing of Defendants’ raising this dispute is not a
basis to deny Defendants’ request to compel production when Defendants embraced a broader
scope of privilege until this Court’s recent Orders to the contrary. Nor are Defendants precluded
from pursuing further discovery after filing a motion for summary judgment.
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 192 Filed 11/25/25 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
Plaintiffs are therefore ORDERED to produce the documents listed at ECF No. 191-2 no
later than two weeks from this Order, except to the extent that (1) documents specifically seek or
convey legal advice, or (2) Plaintiffs’ assertion of privilege rests on their relationship with an
attorney other than Williams. Plaintiffs shall serve a revised privilege log in conjunction with that
production. Any related disputes that remain after that production must be presented by joint
letter no later than four weeks from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 192 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 2