Ambat et al v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 155

ORDER TO DISCLOSE EXTENT OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION[Docket No. 142] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MERCY AMBAT, et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. C 07-03622 SI ORDER TO DISCLOSE EXTENT OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION [Docket No. 142] / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendants.

On September 18, 2009, the Court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to disclose to defense counsel by September 21, 2009 which of the former plaintiffs in this matter he continues to represent. Plaintiffs' counsel failed to do so by the date ordered, and defense counsel filed a discovery request seeking to compel plaintiffs' counsel's compliance with the Court's order. In opposing defendants' request, plaintiffs assert that permitting defendants access to former plaintiffs will violate the attorney-client privilege of the current plaintiffs. Defense counsel has indicated, however, that much of what it wishes to question former plaintiffs about will not implicate the privilege. In any event, a former plaintiff is free to refuse to talk to defense counsel, if he or she so desires, but is also free to waive his or her own attorney-client privilege, is he or she so desires. If plaintiffs' counsel entered into any kind of confidentiality agreement with former plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel should so inform the Court and opposing counsel immediately. Plaintiffs' counsel is hereby ordered to provide the requested information to defense counsel no later than October 30, 2009. Defendants are reminded that they may not engage in retaliation against any former plaintiff who indicates he or she does not wish to speak to defense counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 28, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge