Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 1127

ORDER re: production of documents and disclosure of oral communications to Court Investigator. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/14/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

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

10

Case No. 00-cv-04599-TEH
ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND DISCLOSURE
OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO
COURT INVESTIGATOR

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On March 23, 2016, the Court directed the Compliance Director to “use his

13

authority to ensure that [Internal Affairs Case No. 15-0771] and any related matters are

14

properly and timely investigated, and that all appropriate follow-up actions are taken.”

15

Mar. 23, 2016 Order at 1 (ECF No. 1089). The Compliance Director has engaged Edward

16

Swanson to conduct an investigation of the City’s handling of IA Case No. 15-0771. To

17

facilitate the Court-ordered investigation while also addressing the Oakland City

18

Attorney’s concerns over privilege and work-product protection, the Court enters the

19

following order:

20

1.

Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Negotiated Settlement

21

Agreement concerning the Monitor’s access to privileged or protected information,

22

Mr. Swanson, in his role assisting the Compliance Director for purposes of this

23

investigation, may review such privileged or protected information under the conditions set

24

forth in this order.

25

2.

The City, including the City Attorney’s Office, shall produce to

26

Mr. Swanson for his review all documents and disclose all oral communications that it

27

might otherwise withhold in whole or in part on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or

28

work-product protection.

1

3.

In connection with the City’s production of documents, the City Attorney’s

2

Office shall also produce a privilege log indicating which documents it believes are

3

protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.

4

4.

The City’s production of the documents and disclosure of oral

5

communications subject to the terms of this order shall not be construed as a waiver of the

6

attorney-client privilege or work-product protection in this or any other matter.

7

5.

Mr. Swanson and the Compliance Director each may not disclose or share

8

any documents produced or oral communications disclosed pursuant to this order, or any

9

of the information in such documents, with anyone other than individuals employed by
Mr. Swanson or the Compliance Director to investigate the issues set forth in the Court’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

March 23, 2016 Order.

12

6.

Before including in a report or otherwise referencing in any way or

13

disclosing to any third party a document identified by the City Attorney’s Office as

14

potentially privileged or protected, or an oral communication between an attorney for the

15

City and an employee or officer of the City, Mr. Swanson, in the case of any report he

16

submits to the Court, and the Compliance Director, in the case of any report he submits to

17

the Court, must first meet and confer with the City Attorney’s Office or its designated

18

representatives. If Mr. Swanson or the Compliance Director and the City Attorney’s

19

Office are unable to resolve any disputes as to whether such documents or oral

20

communications are properly withheld on attorney-client privilege or work-product

21

protection grounds, Mr. Swanson or the Compliance Director and the City of Oakland

22

shall bring the matter to the Court’s attention. The Court or a magistrate judge will rule on

23

the applicability of the privilege or protection at issue as well as whether the document or

24

oral communication may be referenced in any report prepared by Mr. Swanson or the

25

Compliance Director after giving the City Attorney’s Office an opportunity to fully brief

26

the matter and, if necessary, a hearing.

27
28

7.

None of the documents or oral communications produced or disclosed

pursuant to this order may be used for any purpose other than for purposes of
2

1

Mr. Swanson’s investigation regarding the issues set forth in the Court’s March 23, 2016

2

Order.

3

8.

After Mr. Swanson has finalized and filed his report with the Court, all

4

copies of documents produced pursuant to this order, including all abstracts, compilations,

5

summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the documents produced

6

pursuant to this order, will be returned to the City Attorney’s Office or destroyed.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: 02/14/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

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

3