Paula Gordon v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., et al.

Filing 99

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 89 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/18/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAULA GORDON,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0007 - DAD - JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
(Docs. 69, 71)

Paula Gordon contends she suffered sexual harassment as an employee of the defendants. She

17
18

alleges the defendants are liable sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of the

19

Fair Employment and Housing Act, violation public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional

20

distress. Plaintiff seeks to compel additional discovery, including deposition testimony and the

21

production of documents, related to an investigation performed regarding her claims. Nexstar contends

22

Plaintiff is not entitled to this additional information. (Doc. 90)
The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. The Court considered

23
24

the filings of the parties and conducted an in camera review of the documents discussed by the plaintiff

25

in her motion. Accordingly, the motion is taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For

26

the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is GRANTED in PART.

27

I.

28

Background
Plaintiff alleges she was hired in December 2012 as an account executive, “to perform in the
1

1

business of television media sales,” and her “$120,000 salary was based on commission only.” (Doc.

2

14 at 5, ¶ 15) She contends that after the defendants hired Erik Mendoza as a sales manager in August

3

2013, she “suffered from constant and egregious sex harassment.” (Id., ¶ 16) Plaintiff asserts she “was

4

subjected to a constant stream of sex harassment, including, inappropriate touching, and obscene and

5

sexually vulgar comments and exhibitions.” (Id., ¶17) She alleges that “acts of harassment were

6

performed in front of other persons, including persons working both for and working with Defendants.”

7

(Id.) According to Plaintiff, “Defendants “tolerated, acquiesced, encouraged, failed to protect, failed to

8

investigate and allowed to exist, a hostile, oppressive, dangerous and violent work environment for

9

Plaintiff as created by [Mendoza].” (Id.)

10

Plaintiff alleges that in February 2016, she complained to her supervisor Derek Jeffery, the

11

General Manager of Nexstar, that “Adam Chase, would constantly threaten Plaintiff’s job by stating he

12

could take away any of her business accounts.” (Doc. 14 at ¶¶ 8, 19) She asserts, “Mr. Chase took

13

away at least eight (8) of Plaintiff’s accounts and inexplicably gave many of them to [Mendoza].” (Id.

14

at 7, ¶19) Plaintiff reports she cried in front of Jeffrey, who responded that Plaintiff was “being way too

15

emotional” and said he “wouldn’t go to [his] boss crying.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that “[i]n June 2016,

16

once Mr. Chase left his position with Defendants, [Jeffery] told Plaintiff that Mr. Chase ‘hated’

17

Plaintiff because ‘he (Mr. Chase) hated women, particularly strong women.’” (Id. at 8, ¶19)

18

She asserts that in July 2016, Mendoza was promoted to local sales manager, a position which

19

made him Plaintiff’s supervisor. (Doc. 14 at 6, ¶18) Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the promotion,

20

she described Mendoza’s “constant egregious and sexually inappropriate comments and actions” to

21

Alma Navarrete, the General Sales Manager and another supervisor over Plaintiff. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 20)

22

Navarrete told Plaintiff to “[j]ust ignore him.” (Id. at 8, ¶ 20) She contends that year, she also described

23

Mendoza’s “offensive and vulgar sexual comments and physical touching, photos and videos to

24

Navarrete, who “discouraged Plaintiff from filing a complaint with Defendants.” (Id., ¶ 23) Plaintiff

25

asserts that Navarrete reported this conversation to Jeffery. (Id.)

26

According to Plaintiff, Mendoza was “investigated by Defendants for sexually harassing

27

another subordinate” after another female account executive, Alyssa Duran, reported Mendoza as

28

sexually harassing her in November 2016. (Doc. 14 at 8, ¶ 21) Plaintiff asserts she was not interviewed
2

1

related to Mendoza’s behavior toward Duran but was instead asked to “describe her ‘relationship’ with

2

her fellow female Account Executive.” (Id.) She alleges Ms. Duran was on leave during the

3

investigation while Mendoza kept working, and after the leave ended, Navarrete told Plaintiff: “[W]e

4

are going to make sure Duran quits. We aren’t going to give her another account. She is out of here.’”

5

(Id., ¶ 22) Plaintiff contends that from this, she “learned what Defendants do to women who complain

6

of sex harassment.” (Id.)

7

On January 12, 2017, Navarrete told Plaintiff that Jeffery wanted to meet with her. (Doc. 14 at

8

8, ¶ 24) Plaintiff asserts that during the meeting, Jeffery informed Plaintiff that Navarrete had reported

9

Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment and abuse by Mendoza.” (Doc. 14 at 8-29, ¶ 24) Jeffery

10

asked Plaintiff if Mendoza made “just comments,” to which Plaintiff responded the harassment was

11

also physical. (Id. at 9, ¶ 24) According to Plaintiff, Jeffrey responded, ““You should have done what

12

my wife would have done, you should have kicked Erik in the balls.” (Id.) Jeffrey then “abruptly”

13

ended the meeting with Plaintiff and Navarrete. (Id.) Later that day, Navarrete went to Plaintiff and

14

said Plaintiff was jeopardizing [Navarrete’s] job by telling her the information about Mendoza.” (Id.,

15

¶ 25) In response, Plaintiff told Navarrete that she could not “pick and choose” what information she

16

told Jeffrey and asked why Navarrete did not tell Jeffrey about Mendoza “showing pictures of his

17

penis and videos of him masturbating.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Navarrete then responded: “Don’t

18

tell me! I don’t want to know!” (Id.)

19

Plaintiff asserts she again met with Jeffery regarding Mendoza’s conduct the following day, on

20

January 13, 2017. (Doc. 14 at 9, ¶ 26) Jeffery again asked Plaintiff whether it “[w]as … more than just

21

comments.” (Id.) She alleges that she responded, “yes, as I told you, it was also physical. Alma

22

[Navarrete] knows everything.” (Id.) Plaintiff added, “I told Alma everything last year.” (Id.) She

23

contends that after the meetings with Jeffery and Navarrete, her “sex harassment complaints were just

24

ignored” and “Defendants did not contact Plaintiff regarding her sexual harassment allegations and

25

complaints.” (Id., ¶ 27)

26

On January 24, 2017, Plaintiff fold Jeffery “that her medical doctor ordered her on a leave of

27

absence to address Plaintiff’s trauma and non-stop hostile workplace.” (Doc. 14 at 9, ¶ 28) In April

28

2017, while Plaintiff remained on leave, she “voluntarily participated in an investigation conducted by
3

1

an attorney who was hired by Defendants to investigate Plaintiff’s sex harassment claims.” (Id. at 9-10,

2

¶ 29) She asserts the investigation concluded in June 2017, and “[t]he investigator found that Defendant

3

Mendoza had sexually harassed Plaintiff.” (Id., ¶ 30)

4

According to Plaintiff, “Defendants demanded that Plaintiff immediately return to work.” (Doc.

5

14 at 10, ¶ 31) She asserts that she “was suffering severe emotional distress from the abuse and

6

mistreatment by Defendants,” and “feared that if she returned to work, she, like other sex harassment

7

victims of Defendants, would be retaliated against by the Local Sales Manager, her bosses, and the

8

entire management team.” (Id.) On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff was fired, and replaced by Lupe Carbajal,

9

“who Defendants[] knew had sexually harassed Plaintiff at a previous job.” (Id., ¶¶ 32- 33)

10

Plaintiff filed claims with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which

11

“granted the right to sue.” (Doc. 14 at 13, ¶ 45) On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in

12

the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 1) Plaintiff identified the following causes

13

of action: (1) statutory harassment, (2) gender discrimination in violation of California’s Fair

14

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (3) violation of public policy, (4) retaliation in violation of

15

FEHA, (5) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See id. at 10, 19-26)

16

Nexstar filed a notice of removal on October 31, 2017, thereby removing the action to the

17

Central District of California. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 14), after which

18

she also voluntarily dismissed The CW Network as a defendant (Doc. 25) and voluntarily dismissed

19

the first cause of action for harassment as to Derek Jeffery and Alma Navarrete (Doc. 26). Thus, the

20

defendants remaining in the action are Nexstar Broadcasting, Telemundo 17.3, KGET-TV 17, and

21

Erik Mendoza. (See Doc. 14 at 10) On December 28, 2017, the Central District transferred the action

22

to the Eastern District of California, thereby initiating the action before this Court. (Doc. 45) T

23

On January 10, 2018, Nexstar filed its Answer, denying Plaintiff’s allegations of wrongful

24

conduct. (Doc. 50 at 2) In addition, as its Eighth Affirmative Defense, Nexstar stated: “Any recovery

25

on Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred in whole or in part

26

because Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any alleged unlawful

27

behavior, including conducting a prompt and thorough investigation after receiving Plaintiff’s

28

workplace complaint.” (Id. at 8)
4

The Court issued new civil case documents and set a scheduling conference for April 2, 2018.

1
2

(See Docs 48, 56) At the scheduling conference, the parties were directed to complete non-expert

3

discovery no later than February 15, 2019. (Doc. 58 at 2) The parties began discovery and participated

4

in mid-discovery status conference with the Court on September 10, 2018. (Doc. 64) At that time,

5

Plaintiff indicated she had served “a request for production and special interrogatories on Defendant

6

Nexstar…” and Nexstar reported the company had “responded to all pending discovery requests to

7

date.” (Doc. 63 at 1, 2) Nexstar’s production included the investigation report and “entire investigation

8

file, including the investigator's notes, outline, written questions, and correspondence with all witnesses

9

interviewed, with the limited exception of communications between defense counsel Angel Sevilla and

10

[the] investigator….” (Doc. 90 at 14) As to the information withheld, Nexstar provided privilege logs.

11

(Id.; see also Doc. 90-4)
Plaintiff now seeks additional discovery related to the investigation performed by Nexstar.

12
13

The Court held an informal telephonic conference with the parties on April 8, 2019. (Doc. 88) Because

14

the dispute was not resolved, Plaintiff was authorized to file a motion to compel the additional

15

discovery. (Doc. 88) On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of the motion now before the Court.

16

(Doc. 89) The parties filed a joint statement regarding the discovery dispute on May 6, 2019. (Doc. 91)

17

II.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Scope of Discovery
The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In

relevant part, Rule 26(b) states:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged manner that is relevant to any party’ claim or defense - including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or
other tangible things . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the accident. Relevant information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the

25

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

26

probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevance is interpreted broadly,

27

based on the general principal that litigants have a right to ‘every man’s evidence’ . . . and that wide

28

access to relevant facts serves the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search
5

1

for the truth.” Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993), quoting United States v. Bryan, 339

2

U.S. 323, 331 (1950) (internal citation omitted).
A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer when a deponent fails

3
4

to answer a question. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Once the party seeking discovery establishes that a

5

request seeks relevant information, “[t]he party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery

6

should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”

7

Global Ampersand, LLC v. Crown Eng'g & Constr., 261 F.R.D. 495, 499 (E.D. Cal. 2009), quoting

8

Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); see also Blankenship v. Hearst

9

Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (requiring defendants “to carry heavy burden of showing why

10

discovery was denied”).

11

III.

Discussion

12

Nexstar reports that when the company responded to Plaintiff’s request for production of

13

documents, it “produced 90% of EXTII’s investigation file, including the investigator's preliminary and

14

final reports, notes, outline, written questions, witness statements, and correspondence with all witnesses

15

interviewed.” (Doc. 90 at 12) Nexstar also produced privilege logs identifying withheld the documents,

16

including: communications between the investigator, Allison Underwood (a licensed attorney), and

17

Nexstar’s counsel; documents identified as “attorney work product,” such as an interview chart and a

18

draft investigation report containing attorney notes; and notes that included communications regarding

19

the scope of the investigation by Ms. Underwood. (See, e.g., Doc. 90-4 at 2)

20

Plaintiff maintains the investigation “was controlled and limited by Nexstar’s present defense

21

counsel, who refused to allow the investigator… to speak with Ms. Duran.” (Doc. 90 at 8) Plaintiff

22

deposed Ms. Underwood and asserts that “Ms. Underwood was precluded from answering questions

23

regarding her communications with Defense Counsel.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, there was “no

24

attorney-client relationship between EXTTI and Jackson Lewis or Nexstar,” such that the identified

25

communications would be privileged. (Id. at 9) In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Nexstar “was required

26

to produce the entirety of the discovery file based on the holding of Wellpont v. Superior Court (1997)

27

59 Cal.App.4th 110,” because Nexstar raised its investigation as an affirmative defense. (Id. at 10)

28

Consequently, Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to further deposition testimony Ms. Underwood.
6

1

(See id. at 8-12) In addition, Plaintiff seeks to compel Nexstar to produce documents withheld from

2

the investigation file, including:

3

•

communications to Defense Counsel regarding the Duran investigation;

4

•

communications about the any request by Ms. Underwood to interview Ms. Duran
and responses thereto;

•

any question posed at deposition to Ms. Underwood that relate to the scope of the
investigation, including any but not limited to communications related to her
request to interview Ms. Duran;

•

the retainer agreement and;

•

numerous documents identified on Defendant’s Privilege Logs (PRIV 03, PRIV05,
0000404, 000423, 000436, 2100207, 2100762, 1302124, 2100551, 900012,
9900030, 900028, 900187, 900188, 900189, 900391, [and] 900106 that related to
the “scope” of the investigation.1

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(Doc. 90 at 12)
Nexstar maintains that it is not obligated to disclose the communications, asserting its “defense

12
13

counsel made those communications in anticipation of litigation.” (Doc. 90 at 12) Nexstar observes

14

that in Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1226-27 (1998), the

15

Court of Appeals held the privilege is not “waived by the employer’s pleading of the adequacy of its

16

prelitigation investigation as a defense to an action for employee discrimination or harassment.” (Id.)

17

A.

Attorney-Client Privilege

18

The attorney-client privilege protects communications “(1) [w]here legal advice of any kind is

19

sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to

20

that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7)

21

from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.” United States

22

v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir.2010). Because the content of the client’s communication would

23

be known if the attorney’s advice was not also protected, the rule prohibits this disclosure as well.

24
25
26
27
28

Though not discussed by either party, the Court notes not all of the documents identified here are “related to the ‘scope’
of the investigation,” because, according to the plaintiff, some were created before Nexstar even contemplated conducting
an investigation. (Doc. 90-2 at 78, document numbers 2100207, 2100762, 1302124, 2100551) Plaintiff offers no
discussion or analysis related to these documents or the other documents not reviewed by the Court in camera. Though the
defense bears the burden of demonstrating the applicability of a privilege, the plaintiff has failed to “put in play” the
documents not reviewed by the Court by failing to assert in any fashion how the information contained in them bear on
liability or damages. The Court declines to manufacture arguments for her. Thus, the motion as to these documents is
DENIED as abandoned.
1

7

1
2

Matter of Fischel, 557 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir. 1977).
Documents prepared by clients to adequately inform an attorney about the factual situation so

3

that the lawyer can render reliable advice, are protected. This protection is provided when the

4

statements “are based on or would tend to reveal the client’s confidential communications.” Matter of

5

Fischel, 557 F.2d at 211. As such, communications to counsel may be protected by the attorney-client

6

privilege if they were made for purposes of evaluating the scope of the investigation and in

7

anticipation of litigation.

8

B.

9

The immunity from disclosure provided by work-product doctrine applies to documents

10

prepared by counsel which reflect the attorney’s mental impressions in preparation for or during

11

litigation. United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2011). “To qualify for work-product

12

protection, documents must: (1) be ‘prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial’ and (2) be

13

prepared ‘by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.’” Id. at 568 (citation

14

omitted). Where documents are prepared for reasons in addition to the prospect of litigation, the party

15

asserting the privilege must demonstrate the document was prepared "because of" litigation. Id.

16

Work-Product

Work product protection, unlike attorney client privilege, is not absolute and can be overcome

17

by a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent of the materials through other

18

means. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(3). Nevertheless, in ordering discovery of such work product the court

19

must “protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of

20

an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.” Id.

21

Nexstar maintains the documents from its counsel, Mr. Sevilla, “to Ms. Underwood (which

22

Plaintiff now seeks) necessarily contains Mr. Sevilla’s mental impressions, conclusions, or legal

23

opinions in anticipation of litigation.” (Doc. 90 at 16) Nexstar maintains Mr. Sevilla “made those

24

communications in anticipation of litigation.” (Id. at 12) As such, the Court finds the documents

25

identified on the privilege log such as “[n]otes containing attorney client communicaiton(sic)” and an

26

interview chart (see Doc. 90-4 at 2) are protected under the work-product privilege.

27

C.

Analysis

28

As noted above, Plaintiff relies in part on Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court of
8

1

Los Angeles County, 59 Cal. App. 4th 110 (1997) to support the production of documents and

2

additional discovery. In Wellpoint, the plaintiff filed an initial complaint and a law firm was brought

3

in to investigate. The court found that hiring the law firm created a prima facie presumption that the

4

attorney-client privilege applied. Nevertheless, because the defendant pointed to the investigation to

5

show that it took reasonable corrective action, the court concluded privilege was waived. Id., 59 Cal.

6

App. 4th at 123. The court explained:

7
8
9

If a defendant employer hopes to prevail by showing that it investigated an
employee’s complaint and took action appropriate to the findings of the investigation,
then it will have put the adequacy of the investigation directly at issue, and cannot
stand on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine to preclude a thorough
examination of its adequacy.

10

Wellpoint, 59 Cal. App. 4th at 128. The court also cautioned, however, that there should not be a

11

“blanket” nullification of the privilege and a plaintiff should not have “carte blanche access” to the

12

defendant’s investigative file. Id. at 122. Rather, documents may be withheld upon review by the

13

court. Id. Thus, the court in Wellpoint determined it was error for the trial court to require the

14

production of “all documents… pertaining to the… prelitigation investigation,” and indicated a

15

privilege log should be prepared by the defendant. Id. at 130.

16

In Kaiser, upon which Nexstar relies, the court distinguished Wellpoint from the facts before it,

17

because the investigation was performed by a non-attorney human resources specialist. Kaiser

18

Foundation, 66 Cal. App. 4th 1217 (1998). In Kaiser, the employer turned over the human resources

19

report—including over 90% of its investigation-related documents—but withheld some attorney-client

20

communications. See id. at 1225. The plaintiff sought to compel the production of the remainder of

21

the documents and the trial court granted the motion. The appellate court found this was an error,

22

because

23
24
25

if an employer has produced the substance of relevant in-house investigations
performed by nonattorney personnel and seeks only to protect specific communications
between those personnel and the employer’s attorneys, the protections afforded by the
law for communications between attorneys and their clients are not waived by the
employer's pleading of the adequacy of its prelitigation investigation as a defense to an
action for employee discrimination or harassment.

26
27

Id., 66 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1219-1220. Further, the Kaiser appellate court held “disclosure of such

28

privileged communications is simply not essential for a thorough examination of the adequacy of the
9

1
2

investigation or a fair adjudication of the action.” Id. at 1227.
The analysis here must begin with a determination as to which attorney Nexstar is attempting

3

to assert a privilege. Though Ms. Underwood was an attorney, Nexstar does not seek to assert the

4

attorney work product privilege as to her efforts. Rather, Nexstar is asserting an attorney-client

5

relationship with its defense counsel, Mr. Sevilla, and is asserting that his work product should be

6

protected. As framed, the factual circumstance is precisely that discussed in Kaiser and is

7

distinguished from Wellpoint, in which the defendant had not produced any portion of the

8

investigation file and relied upon the privilege to refuse to do so.

9

As in Kaiser, Nexstar has produced more than 90% of the investigation file. (See Doc. 90 at

10

12) The remaining documents were withheld on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or were

11

identified as attorney work product. The communications from Mr. Sevilla to Ms. Underwood clearly

12

are protected because they “would necessarily include Mr. Sevilla’s mental impressions and

13

evaluations as defense counsel.” (Id. at 13) Such communications related to an investigation—even

14

where the defendant has placed the scope and quality of its investigation in issue—are clearly

15

protected and may be withheld. See Kaiser, 66 Cal. App. 4th at 1227 (“neither the attorney-client

16

privilege nor the work product doctrine has been waived unless it is established through other

17

discovery that a significant part of any particular communication has already been disclosed to third

18

parties”). For the same reasons, communications by Ms. Underwood to Mr. Sevilla, to the extent they

19

reflect Mr. Sevilla’s mental processes, are protected.

20

The Court has conducted an in camera review of certain of the documents. (See Doc. 96) The

21

Court finds that PRIV03 shall be produced in redacted form. The defense is entitled to redact the

22

entirety of paragraphs 2 and 19. Nexstar shall provide a redacted copy of PRIV04 (the retainer

23

agreement) with paragraph 4 obliterated. The Court does not find that the remainder of these

24

documents implicate either an attorney-client communication or attorney work-product, given the

25

extent of the disclosure by Nexstar thus far. Indeed, PRIV04 appears to be a boilerplate document

26

prepared by EXTTI, with the exception of paragraph 4, which appears to reflect attorney work

27

product.

28

Nexstar shall also produce 900344. There is no showing how this document is privileged.
10

1

Though Ms. Bush is described as “Associate Counsel & VP Human Resources,” the Court has

2

confirmed that Ms. Bush has been an “inactive” member of the California Bar since 20002 and,

3

despite this Nexstar fails to demonstrate that her work product is protected. Inactive members of the

4

California Bar are ineligible to practice law. Z.A. v. San Bruno Park Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 1273, 1275

5

(9th Cir.1999) [“In the state of California, a person must be an active member of the California State

6

Bar in order to practice law.”]; Tavlor v. Chaing, 2009 WL 453050, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 23, 2009)

7

[The practice of law extends to other activities beyond court appearances.]; Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code, at

8

§ 6125 [“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State

9

Bar.”]; Rules of the State Bar of California, Title 2, Rights and Responsibilities of Members, Rule

10

2.30(B) [inactive members prohibited from “occupying a position in the employ of or rendering any

11

legal service for an active member, or occupying a position wherein he or she is called upon in any

12

capacity to give legal advice or counsel or examine the law or pass upon the legal effect of any act,

13

document or law”].
As to the remaining documents, they clearly fall within the attorney work product and/or

14
15

attorney-client privilege. Also, the plaintiff is not entitled to further deposition responses from Ms.

16

Underwood to the extent she seeks information about the content of the discussions between defense

17

counsel and Ms. Underwood.

18

IV.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff’s motion to compel additional

19
20

Conclusion and Order

discovery (Docs. 89, 90) is GRANTED in PART. Nexstar SHALL produce the following:

21

1.

PRIV03 with the entirety of paragraphs 2 and 19 redacted;

22

2.

PRIV04 (the retainer agreement) with paragraph 4 obliterated; and

23

3.

Document 900344;

24

///

25

///

26
27
2

28

The court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th
Cir. 1993). The record of the California State Bar is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

11

1

As to the remaining documents, the motion is DENIED.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 18, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12