Judge Kimba Wood
Claiming attorney-client privilege, Parmar objected to Pineboard's subpoena of documents and deposition from Niehaus in connection with litigation pending in the Central District of California. On March 4 the court ruled Parmar waived attorney-client privilege, and granted Pineboard's motion to compel Niehaus's deposition. Its follow-up March 11 order held the privilege waived entirely and declined to consider whether any communications between Niehaus and Parmar ever could have been considered privileged. District court denied both Pineboard's request to hold that an attorney-client relationship never existed between Parmar and Niehaus, and Pineboard's motion for sanctions against Parmar. Purportedly newly discovered emails between Parmar and Niehaus—which include statements that Parmar "never considered" Niehaus to be his attorney—were insufficient to justify revision of the court's March 11 order. The court had already considered and rejected similar evidence in its original ruling. Because Parmar is not a party to the present litigation, Rule 37 sanctions are unavailable. Nor were sanctions warranted under the court's inherent powers. Parmar was not a litigant. Rather, he responded to a subpoena served by Pineboard.
