Joseph Amey v. Cinemark USA Inc et al

Filing 91

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick re 88 Discovery Letter Brief. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOSEPH AMEY, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05669-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE

9
10

CINEMARK USA INC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 88

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Currently before the Court is defendants’ discovery dispute, challenging plaintiffs’

13

responses to various requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production. Docket

14

No. 88. In response, plaintiffs have agreed – notwithstanding their objections – to provide

15

supplemental responses to the contested discovery requests except for one. Docket No. 90. As

16

such, plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide their supplemental responses and documents within five

17

days of the date of this Order. Additionally, the Court DENIES the request to deem the requests

18

for admission to plaintiff Amey as admitted because his responses were served four days late.

19

With respect to the one remaining objection – to disclose of the identity and contact

20

information for plaintiffs’ investigator and the identity and contact information of defendants’

21

employees who were contacted by the investigator – the Court DENIES the defendants’ motion to

22

compel a response. The Court agrees that the information sought is subject to a qualified work

23

product privilege that can only be overcome by a showing of prejudice by defendants. See, e.g.,

24

Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 4th 480, 502 (2012) (work product privilege protects disclosure

25

of information that “would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or

26

would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or efforts.”).

27

Defendants cannot show prejudice to their ability to defend this action absent disclosure of the

28

investigator information. Defendants can explore the issues of adequacy of counsel and

1

credibility/bias of witnesses in the ongoing depositions of those witnesses.1 As to the

2

identification of witnesses, presumably, defendants have the contact information for all current

3

and former employees so that they can adequately prepare their defense as they see fit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: February 18, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District 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

1

The Court notes that if witnesses are asked in their depositions about how they learned about
this case and what they were told about this case, that basic information would not be protected as
qualified attorney work product.
2