City and County of San Francisco et al v. United States Postal Service et al
Filing
246
ORDER REGARDING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 08/12/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
No. C-09-01964 RS (EDL)
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING IN CAMERA
REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
11
v.
12
US POSTAL SERVICE,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/
In the Court’s July 12, 2011 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to
supplement its privilege log, the Court gave the parties leave to lodge up to ten documents from
Defendant’s log, chosen by Plaintiff, for the Court to review to determine whether the documents
were properly included on Defendant’s privilege log. On August 3, 2011, Defendant lodged the
documents and the parties filed a joint brief regarding the documents. The Court has carefully
reviewed the in camera documents and makes the following rulings.
1.
Email string that includes the entry with subject "SROs" dated December 11, 2008. This
document is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is not
convinced that Defendant reasonably anticipated litigation when this document was created,
but even if Defendant did reasonably anticipate litigation at that time, the chart attached to
the email contains purely factual information that is not protected by the work product
doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs have substantial need for the information, and, unless they
have already been provided the same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger
table or in a different format), they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent
information without undue hardship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product
1
materials may be discovered if: “the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials
2
to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by
3
other means.”). To the extent that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its
4
equivalent, Defendant shall produce it.
5
2.
Email string that includes the undated entry with the subject line “No subject.” This
6
document is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
7
Defendant did not waive either protection. This document is properly on the privilege log.
8
3.
9
Chart entitled "Hotel Information" sent by non-attorney Dan Bernardo dated December 11,
2008. This document is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
not convinced that Defendant reasonably anticipated litigation when this document was
11
created, but even if Defendant did reasonably anticipate litigation at that time, the chart
12
attached to the email contains purely factual information that is not protected by the work
13
product doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs have substantial need for the information, and, unless
14
they have already been provided the same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a
15
larger table or in a different format), they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent
16
information without undue hardship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product
17
materials may be discovered if: “the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials
18
to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by
19
other means.”). To the extent that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its
20
equivalent, Defendant shall produce it.
21
4.
Document entitled "SRO Inventory w/Del. Issues" dated March 31, 2009. This document is
22
not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Further, even assuming that this document was
23
prepared because of litigation for purposes of the work product doctrine, the document
24
contains purely factual information that is not protected by the work product doctrine in this
25
case. Plaintiffs have substantial need for the information, and, unless they have already been
26
provided the same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger table or in a
27
different format), they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent information
28
without undue hardship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product materials
2
1
may be discovered if: “the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to
2
prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by
3
other means.”). To the extent that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its
4
equivalent, Defendant shall produce it.
5
5.
Email string that included the entry with a doc type labeled "Excel" and with the subject
6
"Attachment - Chart" from Dan Bernardo dated December 11, 2008. This document is not
7
protected by the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is not convinced that Defendant
8
reasonably anticipated litigation when this document was created, but even if Defendant did
9
reasonably anticipate litigation at that time, the chart attached to the email contains purely
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
factual information that is not protected by the work product doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs
11
have substantial need for the information, and, unless they have already been provided the
12
same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger table or in a different format),
13
they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent information without undue hardship.
14
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product materials may be discovered if: “the
15
party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot,
16
without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.”). To the extent
17
that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its equivalent, Defendant shall
18
produce it.
19
6.
Email string that included the entry with a doc type labeled "Excel" and with the subject
20
"SRO's prior to Ordinance w/Attachment" from Dan Bernardo dated December 11, 2008.
21
This document is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is not
22
convinced that Defendant reasonably anticipated litigation when this document was created,
23
but even if Defendant did reasonably anticipate litigation at that time, the chart attached to
24
the email contains purely factual information that is not protected by the work product
25
doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs have substantial need for the information, and, unless they
26
have already been provided the same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger
27
table or in a different format), they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent
28
information without undue hardship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product
3
1
materials may be discovered if: “the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials
2
to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by
3
other means.”). To the extent that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its
4
equivalent, Defendant shall produce it.
5
7.
Email string that included the entry with a doc type "Email - string" and with the subject
6
"FW: Attachment" from Judi Mummy to Judi Mummy dated December 11, 2008. This
7
document is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is not
8
convinced that Defendant reasonably anticipated litigation when this document was created,
9
but even if Defendant did reasonably anticipate litigation at that time, the chart attached to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the email contains purely factual information that is not protected by the work product
11
doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs have substantial need for the information, and, unless they
12
have already been provided the same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger
13
table or in a different format), they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent
14
information without undue hardship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product
15
materials may be discovered if: “the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials
16
to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by
17
other means.”). To the extent that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its
18
equivalent, Defendant shall produce it.
19
8.
Email string that included the entry with a doc type "Attached" and with the subject
20
"Attachment" from Dan Bernardo dated December 11, 2008. This document is not protected
21
by the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is not convinced that Defendant
22
reasonably anticipated litigation when this document was created, but even if Defendant did
23
reasonably anticipate litigation at that time, the chart attached to the email contains purely
24
factual information that is not protected by the work product doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs
25
have substantial need for the information, and, unless they have already been provided the
26
same information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger table or in a different format),
27
they would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent information without undue hardship.
28
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product materials may be discovered if: “the
4
1
party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot,
2
without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.”). To the extent
3
that Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its equivalent, Defendant shall
4
produce it.
5
9.
Email string that included the entry with a doc type “Attached” and with the subject
6
“Attachment” with no author dated December 11, 2008. This document is not protected by
7
the attorney-client privilege. Further, the Court is not convinced that Defendant reasonably
8
anticipated litigation when this document was created, but even if Defendant did reasonably
9
anticipate litigation at that time, the chart attached to the email contains purely factual
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
information that is not protected by the work product doctrine in this case. Plaintiffs have
11
substantial need for the information, and, unless they have already been provided the same
12
information in a different form (e.g., as part of a larger table or in a different format), they
13
would be unable to obtain substantially equivalent information without undue hardship. See
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that work product materials may be discovered if: “the party
15
shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without
16
undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.”). To the extent that
17
Plaintiffs have not already received this document or its equivalent, Defendant shall produce
18
it.
19
10.
Email string that includes the 6 entries with a doc type "Email-string" and with the subject
20
"Fw: San Fran SRO templt" dated from December 17, 2008 to December 23, 2008. This
21
document is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, it is properly on
22
Defendant’s privilege log.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: August 12, 2011
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?