City and County of San Francisco et al v. United States Postal Service et al

Filing 350

ORDER re 252 MOTION to Compel PRIVILEGE LOG PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PROMISED TO PRODUCE AND FOR LIMITED REOPENING OF DISCOVERY IF NECESSARY filed by United States Postal Service. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 10/17/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011)

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 DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET 252)

11
v.
12
US POSTAL SERVICE,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Privilege Log (docket 252). Because
this motion was appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the October 18,
2011 hearing. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is denied.
By this Motion, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to produce a privilege log relating to
documents withheld by the Department of Building Inspection from files that Defendant inspected
over the summer. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has agreed to produce the log on several occasions
since May 2011. Plaintiff produced the log on August 30, 2011, after this Motion was filed. See
Lee Decl. Ex. F. It is regrettable that the log was not produced sooner and it would have been
preferable to have avoided motion practice on this issue. However, to the extent that Defendant’s
Motion sought production of a privilege log, the motion is denied as moot.
In the reply brief, Defendant seeks a court order requiring Plaintiff to certify the
completeness and accuracy of the August 30, 2011 privilege log on the grounds that Plaintiff unduly
delayed in producing the log, which had only six entries. The Court does not find anything
inherently suspicious about the length or the content of the log. Further, on October 12, 2011, after
the briefing on this motion was complete, Plaintiff provided a Certification of Privilege Log, stating

1

that “the City hereby certifies that its privilege log produced on August 30, 2011 is true, accurate,

2

and complete to the best of the City’s knowledge, information and belief.” Accordingly,

3

Defendant’s request for a certification is denied as moot.

4

Defendant also seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to produce any litigation holds issued in
connection with this case, even though Defendant did not previously seek discovery on this issue.

6

Discovery closed in this case in June 2011, and Defendant has not made a showing that there is any

7

reason to believe that Plaintiff has not preserved documents. Thus, Defendant’s request for

8

discovery of any litigation holds is denied.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

Dated: October 17, 2011
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2