Fox v. Shinseki

Filing 121

ORDER re 118 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFF ON CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE filed by Eric K. Shinseki. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 5/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Jamie Fox, Plaintiff, 13 14 No. CV 11-04820 EDL ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW v. 15 Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of the Department of 16 Veterans Affairs, Agency, 17 Defendant. / 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Stipulation Regarding In Camera Inspection of Documents Withheld By Plaintiff on Claims of Privilege as well as a folder of documents lodged with chambers on April 30, 2013. See Dkt. # 118. The parties agree that the Court should conduct an in camera inspection of this subset of documents listed on Plaintiff’s privilege log, and they will then use the Court’s guidance and evaluation to the remainder of the documents withheld. Id. They also state that they are willing, if requested by the Court, to provide a short letter brief to provide the Court with any necessary factual information or legal argument. Id. The Court agrees to conduct an in camera review of the documents lodged by Plaintiff on April 30, 2013, which the Court presumes are the same as those listed in the parties’ stipulation. However, further information is needed before the Court can make a determination on whether the documents should be ordered produced, and/or provide more general guidance on Plaintiff’s withholding of other documents based on similar claims of privilege. By no later than May 8, 2013, 1 the parties shall file a letter brief of no more than six pages (four pages allocated to Plaintiff and two 2 pages allocated to Defendant) explaining their respective positions on the issues identified below. 3 Specifically, Plaintiff withholds many documents on the basis of “attorney/client” and “work 4 product” privileges. Given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action and appears to have been 5 previously unrepresented by counsel in prior administrative proceedings, Plaintiff must explain her 6 factual and legal basis for asserting these claims of privilege. Apparently, Plaintiff’s former co- 7 worker Ann Williams is a member of the state bar, so Plaintiff may believe that emails sent to or 8 from Ms. Williams are privileged by the attorney-client privilege or work product protected. 9 However, the fact that a person is a lawyer does not make all communication with that person United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 privileged. See U.S. v Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 11 504, 507 (9th Cir.1997) (party asserting attorney-client privilege must establish attorney-client 12 relationship and the privileged nature of the communication). Additionally, even if Plaintiff and Ms. 13 Williams had an attorney-client relationship, third-parties were copied on some of the 14 communications in question, raising the issue of waiver of any applicable privilege. Plaintiff must 15 address each of these points in her portion of the letter brief. 16 Plaintiff withholds other documents on the basis of a “common interest” privilege but has 17 provided no explanation of what she means by this. Generally, the joint-defense privilege, or 18 common interest rule, is an extension of the attorney-client privilege. Walker v. Financial Corp. of 19 America, 828 F.2d 579, 583 n.7 (9th Cir. 1987). Typically, the attorney-client privilege will be 20 deemed waived when the content of an otherwise privileged communication is disclosed to a third 21 party or when communication occurs within the presence of a third party. The joint-defense 22 privilege is an exception to the waiver rule. U.S. v Stepney, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 23 2003) (“The joint defense privilege was adopted as an exception to this waiver rule, under which 24 communications between a client and his lawyer remain protected by the attorney-client privilege 25 when disclosed to co-defendants or their counsel for purposes of a common defense.”) The joint 26 defense doctrine presupposes the existence of an otherwise valid privilege. See In re Grand Jury 27 Subpoenas, 902 F.2d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 1990). The burden for claiming the joint-defense privilege 28 is on Plaintiff, who must demonstrate that: (1) the communications were made in the course of a 2 1 joint defense effort, (2) the statements were designed to further the effort, and (3) the privilege has 2 not been waived. U.S. v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 495 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Given the foregoing, 3 Plaintiff must explain why she believes that a “common interest” privilege applies to any of the 4 documents so identified. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: May 2, 2013 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Chief Magistrate Judge 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?