Schmuckley et al v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 467

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 01/25/2023 ORDERING the undersigned finds that the documents identified in the 442 Motion for In Camera Review and Production of Documents, Defendants' Privilege Log as Document Numbers 89-93 and 95-98 WERE NOT Improperly Withheld. Rodriguez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
ex rel. LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

Case No. 2:12-cv-01699-KJM-JDP

ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. LOYD
F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.,

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24

This court previously granted plaintiff-intervenor State of California’s motion for in

25

camera review of certain documents over which defendants have asserted attorney-client

26

privilege. ECF No. 450. I have reviewed the documents, which consist of four unique

27

documents—minutes from two meetings and an email and accompanying attachment—and has

28

considered the parties’ associated submissions. I find that the documents were not improperly
1

1

withheld.

2

A.

3

California asked the court to conduct an in camera review of documents over which

Background

4

defendants have asserted privilege, and which defendants have either entirely withheld or

5

produced with redactions. The documents are identified in the nine rows of defendants’ March

6

29, 2022 privilege log, listed as Document Numbers 89-93 and 95-98. ECF No. 442-3.

7

Defendants have stated that these documents—created in August or September 2006—contain

8

communications related to Medi-Cal’s Pharmacy Outreach Program (“POP”), which was

9

launched in 2006 as an effort “to educate providers about Medi-Cal billing requirements,

10

including Code 1 requirements.” ECF No. 442 at 7; ECF No. 444 at 5. They explained that to

11

prepare for POP visits, Rite Aid established a Medi-Cal Audit Task Force (“Task Force”), which

12

relied on attorney Michael Yount—Rite Aid’s then-Director of Government Affairs—“for legal

13

advice concerning Medi-Cal rules and regulations in connection with these POP visits and related

14

issues.” ECF No. 444 at 5. Defendants have contended that the nine documents contain

15

privileged communications that either reflect Yount’s legal opinions or were made by Rite Aid

16

employees to assist him in providing legal advice to the company.

17

The court granted California’s request for an in camera review and directed defendants to

18

submit the relevant documents and supporting declarations to the court. The court directed

19

defendants to serve California with a copy of the declarations.1 Defendants have complied, and

20

California has filed a response to defendants’ supporting declarations. ECF No. 454.

21

B.

Legal Standards

22

In cases involving both federal and supplemental state law claims, federal privilege law

23

applies. Agster v. Maricopa Cnty., 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005). “The attorney-client

24

privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients, which are made for

25

the purpose of giving legal advice.” United States v. Sanmina Corp., 968 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th

26

Cir. 2020) (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)). It

27
28

1

Defendants were notified that they could redact any privileged information from the
declarations served on California.
2

1

“exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the

2

giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.” Upjohn,

3

449 U.S. at 390. The “party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing

4

the relationship and the privileged nature of the communication,” and “if necessary, [of]

5

segregat[ing] the privileged information from the non-privileged information.” United States v.

6

Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 608-09 (emphasis in original). “Because it impedes full and free discovery

7

of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.” Id. at 607. The attorney-client

8

privilege exists:

9

11

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional
legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications
relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client,
(6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by
himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.

12

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 n.2 (9th Cir. 1992). The party asserting the

13

privilege bears the burden of establishing each element. Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 608.

10

14

In cases involving corporate clients, like the instant one, “[t]he administration of the

15

attorney-client privilege in the case of corporations” presents certain challenges, including the

16

challenge of identifying the client. United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010).

17

Since a corporation can only act through its agents, the privilege may apply “to communications

18

by any corporate employee regardless of position when the communications concern matters

19

within the scope of the employee’s corporate duties and the employee is aware that the

20

information is being furnished to enable the attorney to provide legal advice to the corporation.”

21

Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Upjohn, 449 U.S.

22

at 394).

23

Under this framework, courts have held that the privilege may apply to “a communication

24

between nonlegal employees in which the employees discuss or transmit legal advice given by

25

counsel,” as well as “an employee [communication regarding] her intent to seek legal advice

26

about a particular issue.” United States v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1077

27

(N.D. Cal. 2002). “[W]here the specific purpose of the document is to seek legal advice and the

28

document is sent to nonlegal business staff for the purpose of informing them that legal advice
3

1

has been sought or obtained, the attorney-client privilege obtains even though the document was

2

provided to nonlegal personnel.” In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03-3709 SI

3

(EMC), 2006 WL 2585038, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006) (internal quotations omitted). See

4

AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 WL 21212614, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2003)

5

(“Communications containing information compiled by corporate employees for the purpose of

6

seeking legal advice and later communicated to counsel are protected by attorney-client

7

privilege.”); United States v. Reyes, 239 F.R.D. 591, 598 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (noting that attorney-

8

client privilege applies in the corporate “context of an investigation or fact-finding inquiry

9

conducted by a company’s attorneys”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena v. United States, 599 F.2d 504

10

(2d Cir. 1979) (finding that common law attorney-client privilege did not cover an investigation

11

conducted by management alone for the purpose of discovering facts, but it did apply to a second

12

investigation conducted by counsel seeking to determine appropriate tax filings and to evaluate

13

the vulnerability of the corporation or its personnel to civil and criminal sanctions).

14

If a communication serves a dual purpose—i.e., it relates to both a legal and business

15

concern—courts utilize the primary purpose test to assess whether the communication is

16

privileged. In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under the ‘primary purpose’ test,

17

courts look at whether the primary purpose of the communication is to give or receive legal

18

advice, as opposed to business or tax advice.” Id. at 1091.

19

C.

20

As noted above, the documents at issue consist of minutes from two Task Force meetings

21
22

Discussion

and a single email and associated attachment.
1.

Meeting Minutes

23

The documents numbered 89 and 90, which defendants produced with redactions, contain

24

minutes from two Task Force meetings held in August 2006. Defendants argue that the redacted

25

portions of the minutes reflect Mr. Yount’s legal advice, which Rite Aid sought in preparation for

26

POP visits. ECF No. 444-6 at 2. More specifically, defendants contend that “Mr. Yount was

27

asked to provide, and did provide, his legal interpretation and analysis of Medi-Cal audit rules

28

and regulations and Pharmacist-In-Charge rules and regulations.” Id.
4

1

Review of the redacted portions of these minutes substantiates defendants’ position. The

2

documents’ first two redacted sections concern an internal regulatory compliance review and Mr.

3

Yount’s impressions thereof.2 The remaining two redactions memorialize Mr. Yount’s legal

4

assessments of regulations and Medi-Cal audit rules. The redacted language describes counsel’s

5

legal opinions and communications made to the client to keep the client informed of legal

6

developments. Such communications fall within the protection afforded by the attorney-client

7

privilege. See In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03-3709 SI (EMC), 2006 WL

8

1699536, *4 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006) (“The attorney-client privilege protects documents which

9

‘involve either client communications intended to keep the attorney apprised of continuing

10

business developments, with an implied request for legal advice based thereon, or self-initiated

11

attorney communications intended to keep the client posted on legal developments and

12

implications, including implications of client activity noticed by the attorney but with regard to

13

which no written request for advice from the client has been found.”) (quoting Jack Winter, Inc.

14

v. Koratron Co., 54 F.R.D. 44, 46) (N.D. Cal. 1971).

15
16

2.

Emails and Attachments

The documents numbered 91, 93, 95, and 97 are identical copies of an email that Jack

17

Huston—the then-director of Rite Aid’s departments of Third Party Audit & Analysis and Third

18

Party Document Retention—sent to Rite Aid personnel, including Mr. Yount. The email

19

concerns an internal investigation related to Rite Aid’s compliance with pharmacy rules and

20

regulations, including discussions of initiatives related to regulatory compliance. Defendants

21

explain that Rite Aid, at the direction of Mr. Yount, conducted the internal investigation “to

22

independently review and assess the regulatory compliance of certain stores that were subject to

23

Medi-Cal store visits in connection with POP.” ECF No. 444-6 at 3. They further state that Mr.

24

Yount enlisted Rite Aid’s Third Party Audit department to assist with the investigation, which

25

included gathering the necessary facts and data. Decl. of Ryan McCarthy ISO Defs.’ Privilege

26

Assertions. Mr. Huston attests that he was aware that the investigation was being conducted at

27
28

2

Each set of produced minutes includes redactions of the same language.
5

1
2

Mr. Yount’s request. ECF No. 444-5 at 2.
Based on a review of the email and defendants’ supporting declarations, the court is

3

satisfied that Mr. Huston’s email was sent for the purpose of facilitating legal advice.

4

Accordingly, the documents numbered 91, 93, 95, and 97 are protected by the privilege. See

5

Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Ci., 266 F.R.D. 433, 445 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (observing that documents

6

created by non-attorney that summarizes factual findings of internal investigation are privileged

7

so long as the “author of the communication was aware that the audit to which the

8

communication related was being conducted for the purposes of obtaining legal advice and that

9

the document was being created to advance that purpose”); cf. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,

10

756 F.3d 754, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“In the context of an organization’s internal investigation, if

11

one of the significant purposes of the internal investigation was to obtain or provide legal advice,

12

the privilege will apply. That is true regardless of whether an internal investigation was

13

conducted pursuant to a company compliance program required by statute or regulation, or was

14

otherwise conducted pursuant to company policy.”).

15

The remaining three documents—numbered 92, 96, and 98—are four copies of a

16

spreadsheet that was included as an attachment to Mr. Huston’s email.3 The spreadsheet details

17

the factual findings of the internal investigation conducted by Rite Aid’s Third Party Audit

18

department. Although the attachment was not prepared by counsel, the factual findings contained

19

therein were gathered to assist Mr. Yount in providing legal advice. Consequently, the

20

spreadsheet contained in the documents numbered 92, 96, and 98 is also privileged. See United

21

States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “fact-finding which pertains

22

to legal advice counts as ‘professional legal services’”); see also In re Morning Song Bird Food

23

Litig., No. 12cv1592 JAH(RBB), 2015 WL 12791473, *5 (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2015) (“A

24

document need not be authored or addressed to an attorney in order to be properly withheld on

25

attorney-client privilege grounds.”) (quotations omitted); AT&T Corp., 2003 WL 21212614, at *4

26

(“An attachment must qualify on its own for attorney-client privilege and ‘must be listed as a

27
28

3

Document Number 92 includes two copies of the spreadsheet.
6

1

separate document on the privilege log.’”) (quoting O’Connor v. Boeing N. American, Inc., 185

2

F.R.D. 272, 280 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the documents identified in defendants’ March 29,

3
4

2022 privilege log as Document Numbers 89-93 and 95-98 were not improperly withheld.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:
8
9

January 25, 2023
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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