Janice Tria v. Innovation Ventures LLC et al

Filing 75

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Defendant Innovative Venture, LLC's Requests for Reconsideration/Clarification of Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Engagement Letter (Docket No. 72 ) by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. In response to the Court's request, Defendant has filed a reply brief addressing various discovery issues. After reconsidering its finding that the engagement letter is not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable, the Court reaffirms that ruling. (See Minute Order for further details) (afe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-7135-GW (PJWx)

Title

Janice Tria v. Innovation Ventures LLC., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 21, 2012

Patrick J. Walsh

Alma Felix (Relief CRD)

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

Defendant Innovative Venture, LLC’s Requests for Reconsideration/
Clarification of Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of
Engagement Letter (Docket No. 72) (In Chambers)

In response to the Court’s request, Defendant has filed a reply brief addressing various discovery issues.
In addition, Defendant has requested that the Court reconsider its previous finding that the engagement
agreement between Plaintiff and her counsel is not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable. Defendant
points out that the Ninth Circuit has held that engagement agreements are not privileged and argues:
“The engagement agreement is relevant to Plaintiff’s suitability to adequately represent the class and
whether her claims are ‘typical’ of the proposed class she seeks to represent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.”
Defendant’s argument is not persuasive. In fact, it’s not really an argument at all but is, instead, a
conclusion, i.e., that the agreement is relevant. There is no explanation as to why the agreement will
shed light on Plaintiff’s suitability to act as the class representative or that her claims are typical of class
members’ claims. Further, it is not supported by Rule 23, which is what Defendant cites in support of
the argument. Rule 23 does not talk about engagement letters or relevancy.

For these reasons, after reconsidering its finding that the engagement letter is not relevant and, therefore,
not discoverable, the Court reaffirms that ruling.

cc: All counsel

S:\PJW\Cases-X\Tria v. Innovation\MO_reonsideration of mtn to compel.wpd

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

af

Page 1 of 1