Riese v. County of Del Norte et al

Filing 134

ORDER REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS by Hon. William H. Orrick re 129 and 131 Discovery Letter Briefs. The Court Orders that the documents be disclosed in their unredacted form to plaintiff's counsel today, subject to the redaction of the name of the third party in the penultimate paragraph in CDN #10, and the personal pronoun that follows the name. The documents should be treated as confidential documents for the present time. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MICHAEL RIESE,

7

Case No. 12-cv-03723-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF
DOCUMENTS

9
COUNTY OF DEL NORTE, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 129, 130, and, 131

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Following the Court’s Order requiring that defendants revise their privilege log to assert

13
14

proper objections to the disclosure of certain documents in the possession of the District

15

Attorney’s Office (see Dkt. Nos. 129 and 130), defendants alleged that the documents were

16

immune from disclosure as work product. Plaintiff disagreed, and I reviewed the documents in

17

camera. As I stated in the telephonic hearing this afternoon, the documents should be produced.1

18

The documents do not qualify as work product because they were not prepared by or for a

19

party in this action, other than Mr. Alexander, and he wrote or received documents in his capacity

20

as the District Attorney of Del Norte County for the People of California, not as an individual

21

acting in his own capacity. See Sommer v. United States, 2011 WL 4433631 (S.D. Cal 2011);

22

Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601, 606 (E.D. Cal. 1993); Shepherd v. Superior Court of Alameda

23

County, 17 Cal. 3d 107, 122 (1976). Even if some of the documents could have qualified as work

24

product, the mental impressions of those working in the District Attorney’s Office who were

25

aware of Mr. Alexander’s and the Office’s actions involving plaintiff are potentially relevant to

26

certain of plaintiff’s allegations in this case. Plaintiff would not be able to develop this

27
1

28

I will not describe the background of this case nor the dispute in depth, as it is well known to the
parties.

1

information absent disclosure. See Sommer; Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.

2

2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992).

3

I am not making a finding that these documents are admissible at trial, only that they are

4

discoverable. I will consider admissibility at the pretrial conference or during trial. Because the

5

documents have been kept in the files of the District Attorney and their ultimate relevance to the

6

litigation has not been raised or determined, I ORDER that:

7

1. The documents be disclosed in their unredacted form to plaintiff’s counsel today,

8

subject to the redaction of the name of the third party in the penultimate paragraph in

9

CDN #10, and the personal pronoun that follows the name.
2. The documents should be treated as confidential documents for the present time. If

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

they are used as exhibits in any deposition, they shall be sealed. If they are used as

12

exhibits in any motion before this Court, the proponent of the documents shall file

13

them under seal in accordance with the Court’s sealing procedures, and any party may

14

oppose sealing at that time. They should not be disclosed except to parties, co-counsel,

15

witnesses, experts, investigators or others directly involved in the litigation, absent

16

further Order of the Court.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2