Hanford Executive Management Employee Association et al v. City of Hanford et al

Filing 106

ORDER that defendants shall provide copies of the documents to the Court for In Camera review no later than October 4, 2013. No later then October 4, 2013, defendants shall file a brief on the issue of whether the documents in Mr. Nelson's poss ession should be produced in response to plaintiff's request for production. Defendants shall also include a privilege log detailing any privileges applicable to these documents and no later then October 11, 2013, plaintiffs shall file a responsive brief on the issue of the documents in Mr. Nelson's possession. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/30/2013. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

HANFORD EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, et al.,

15

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND
MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No. 1:11-cv-00828-AWI-SAB

v.
CITY OF HANFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On September 25, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions to compel and

19 Defendants’ motion to quash. At the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit further
20 briefing and evidence.
21

After reviewing the parties’ filings, the Court finds it necessary to conduct an in camera

22 review of the documents that Defendants claim are privileged. Accordingly, the Court will order
23 Defendants to submit the documents to the Court.
24

In order to aid the Court’s review, the Court will order Defendants to produce the

25 documents in PDF format. The Court will further require Defendants to produce the following
26 documents compiled in three separate PDF files:
27
28

1.

All documents listed in Defendants’ privilege log that were withheld on the basis
of the attorney-client privilege;

1

1

2.

of the work product doctrine; and

2
3

3.

All documents listed in Defendants’ privilege log that were withheld on the basis
of the closed session privilege.

4
5

All documents listed in Defendants’ privilege log that were withheld on the basis

The aforementioned documents shall include any documents that were identified as

6 “attachments” in Defendants’ privilege log and withheld on the basis of privilege. Each of the
7 three categories of documents shall also include an index that identifies each separate document
8 by number so the Court can refer to each document using an identifier that does not reveal the
9 document’s contents.
10

Further, at the hearing, Defendants indicated that certain documents were not produced in

11 response to Plaintiffs’ requests for production on the grounds that such documents were in the
12 possession of Scott Nelson and not in Defendants’ “possession.” Defendants further indicated
13 that the city attorney had possession of copies of these documents. It appears that Plaintiffs were
14 not aware that documents were withheld on this basis. Accordingly, the Court will order the
15 parties to file briefing on the issue. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D. Cal.
16 1995) (“...actual possession of the requested documents is not required. A party may be ordered
17 to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to
18 obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document.”)
19 Defendants shall also include a privilege log to the extent that they contend that any documents
20 withheld on this basis are also privileged.
21

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

Defendants shall provide copies of the documents identified above to the Court

23

for in camera review in the format specified by mailing the documents as

24

attachments to an e-mail sent to [e-mail] no later than

25

Friday, October 4, 2013;

26

2.

No later than Friday, October 4, 2013, Defendants shall file, via CM/ECF, a brief

27

on the issue of whether the documents in Mr. Nelson’s possession should be

28

produced in response to Plaintiffs’ request for production. Defendants shall also

2

include a privilege log detailing any privileges applicable to these documents; and

1
2

3.

No later than Friday, October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs shall file, via CM/ECF, a
responsive brief on the issue of the documents in Mr. Nelson’s possession.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated:

September 30, 2013

_

7

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3