Caldwell v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 205

ORDER regarding Defendant's motion to compel 161 by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAURICE CALDWELL,

Case No. 12-cv-01892-EDL

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER

9
10

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 161

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On August 21, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel production of documents and

13

deposition testimony from attorney Paige Kaneb. As stated at the September 29, 2015 hearing,

14

work product protection and attorney-client privilege is waived as to the specific subject matters

15

discussed in declarations by Ms. Kaneb filed in support of Plaintiff’s petition for compensation

16

pursuant to California Penal Code section 4900 and Plaintiff’s request for a finding of innocence

17

pursuant to California Penal Code section 1485.55. The Parties are ordered to meet and confer on

18

these topics as discussed at the hearing. If any disputes remain, the Parties are ordered to file a

19

joint letter of no more than eight pages by October 8, 2015.

20

At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that attorney-client privilege was not waived as to Ms.

21

Kaneb’s August 11, 2010 declaration because it was only filed in support of Plaintiff’s habeas

22

corpus petition. See Cal. Evid. Code § 958 (“[t]here is no privilege under this article as to a

23

communication relevant to an issue of breach, by the lawyer or by the client, of a duty arising out

24

of the lawyer-client relationship.”); Dkt. 121 at 4-5 (explaining that this provision “creates a

25

narrow exception to the attorney-client privilege, rather than a waiver, in cases where [it] applies, such

26

as habeas proceedings involving ineffective assistance of counsel claims ”). However, the Parties did

27

not address the extent to which the exception created by section 958 extends to communications

28

involving attorneys other than the allegedly ineffective attorney (e.g., Paige Kaneb and Donald

1

Bergerson). Accordingly, the Parties are ordered to file a joint letter of no more than eight pages

2

addressing this issue by October 6, 2015.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2015

5
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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