K2 Asia Ventures v. Trota
215 N.C. App. 443
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs sued numerous entities in Forsyth County for alleged breaches of business agreements.
- Defendants KKD and Philippine Defendants moved to dismiss and then discovery disputes arose over personal jurisdiction and document production.
- Trial court ordered depositions of the Philippine Defendants in Glendale, California, prompting a separate interlocutory appeal (K2 I) that was dismissed as interlocutory.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents; the trial court entered orders on 15 June 2010 and 15 June 2010 to compel production from KKD and Philippine Defendants.
- The KKD Defendants appeal the 15 June 2010 order as to request 3; Philippine Defendants appeal various aspects of privilege objections and discovery rulings.
- This Court addresses whether the discovery orders are immediately appealable, whether blanket privilege objections are adequate, and whether privilege logs and burden of establishing privilege were properly handled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 15 June 2010 order to produce documents from KKD immediately appealable? | KKD: order affects substantial rights and is appealable under Evans/Sharpe. | KKD: none beyond assertion of privilege | Yes; order remains immediately appealable. |
| Are blanket, general privilege objections by the Philippine Defendants sufficient to preserve privilege on appeal? | No; Evans/Sharpe require specific, document-by-document privilege assertions. | Yes; blanket objections should reserve privilege rights. | No; blanket objections are inadequate and do not preserve the privilege for appeal. |
| Did the Philippine Defendants preserve privilege claims via privilege logs for appellate review? | Preservation requires timely, court-posed privilege challenges; logs must be reviewed and properly presented. | Privilege logs provided, should be reviewed. | No; logs were not properly presented to the trial court, and privilege claims were not adequately established. |
| Did KKD abuse the discovery process in failing to establish privilege or work product protections for request 3? | KKD asserted privilege; trial court should compel only non-privileged documents. | KKD did not provide evidence or arguments on privilege. | No abuse; KKD bore the burden and failed to present proof; production order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 142 N.C.App. 18 (2001) (burden to establish privilege and work product; appealable issues require proper preservation)
- Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159 (1999) (interlocutory discovery orders; privilege directly relates to disclosure)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (blanket privilege objections insufficient; require document-by-document assertion)
- Culinary Foods, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 150 F.R.D. 122 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (document-by-document privilege objections preferred)
- Eureka Financial Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (blanket privilege objections considered improper)
- Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. Marathon Oil Co., 109 F.R.D. 12 (D. Neb. 1985) (work product privilege objections must be specific)