Codding v. Pearson Education, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler adjudicating 117 Discovery Letter Brief. As set forth in the attached order, the court holds that Dr. Codding waived any claim of work-product protection she might have had over the text messages and emails she sent to Mr. Singer. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division United States District Court Northern District of California 11 JUDY CODDING, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Defendant. 15 ORDER ADJUDICATING JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF AND HOLDING CLAIM OF WORKPRODUCT PROTECTION WAS WAIVED Re: ECF No. 117 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 19 Case No. 18-cv-00817-LB Plaintiff Judy Codding filed this breach-of-contract claim against her former employer Pearson Education, Inc. in February 2018. 20 In the spring and summer of 2018, Dr. Codding sent various text messages and emails to 21 another former Pearson Education employee, Lawrence Singer.1 Among other things, Dr. Codding 22 forwarded to Mr. Singer communications that she had with her counsel and her husband about her 23 case.2 24 25 26 27 Pearson Educ. Mot. for Leave to File Amend. Answer and Countercl. Ex. C – ECF No. 112-1 at 11– 18. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of documents. 1 2 Id. at 14–15. 28 ORDER – No. 18-cv-00817-LB 1 On March 20, 2019, Pearson Education gave notice to Dr. Codding of its intent to issue a 2 subpoena to Mr. Singer (and gave Dr. Codding a copy of its proposed subpoena).3 On March 26, 3 2019, pursuant to the subpoena, Mr. Singer produced to Pearson Education his text messages and 4 emails with Dr. Codding (including Dr. Codding’s forwarding to him of her communications with 5 her counsel and her husband).4 On April 4, 2019, Pearson Education filed these text messages and 6 emails as an attachment to its reply brief in support of its motion for leave to file an amended 7 answer and counterclaims.5 On April 6, 2019, Dr. Codding requested copies of all documents Pearson Education received 8 9 in response to any subpoenas.6 On April 9, 2019, Pearson Education produced Mr. Singer’s document production (the same documents it had filed as an exhibit to its reply brief).7 That same 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 day, Dr. Codding sent Pearson Education an email asserting a claim of work-product protection 12 over Mr. Singer’s document production and demanding that Pearson Education delete and destroy 13 any copies thereof, pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 of the Protective Order in this case.8 Pearson 14 Education maintains that Dr. Codding waived any claim of work-product protection by voluntarily 15 disclosing information to Mr. Singer, which allowed Pearson Education to obtain that information 16 from Mr. Singer.9 17 The court can decide this dispute without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The court 18 holds that Dr. Codding waived any claim of work-product protection she might have had over the 19 text messages and emails she sent to Mr. Singer. 20 21 22 3 23 24 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 117 at 1. Id.; Pearson Educ. Mot. for Leave to File Amend. Answer and Countercl. Ex. C – ECF No. 112-1 at 11–18. 4 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 117 at 1; Pearson Educ. Mot. for Leave to File Amend. Answer and Countercl. Ex. C – ECF No. 112-1 at 11–18. 5 25 6 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 117 at 2. 7 Id. 27 8 Id. (citing Protective Order – ECF No. 78 at 7 (¶ 5.3)). 28 9 Id. at 2–3. 26 ORDER – No. 18-cv-00817-LB 2 ANALYSIS 1 2 3 1. Governing Law “The work-product doctrine protects ‘from discovery documents and tangible things prepared 4 by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.’” United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 5 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir. 6 1989)). The party asserting work-product protection has the burden of establishing that the work- 7 product doctrine applies to the document or tangible thing in question. Callwave Commc’ns, LLC 8 v. Wavemarket, Inc., No. C 14-80112 JSW (LB), 2015 WL 831539, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 9 2015) (citing Skynet Elec. Co. Ltd. v. Flextronics Int’l, Ltd., No. C 12-06317 WHA, 2013 WL 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 6623874, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013)). “For work product, ‘protection is waived where disclosure of the otherwise privileged 12 documents is made to a third party, and that disclosure enables an adversary to gain access to the 13 information.’” Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 580 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting 14 United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 497 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). This may occur where “a party 15 discloses protected information to a third party who is not bound to maintain its confidence, or 16 otherwise shows disregard for the protection by making the information public.” Great Am. Assur. 17 Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (internal brackets 18 omitted) (quoting Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 719, 720 n.4, 722 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003)). 19 20 21 2. Application Dr. Codding sent text messages and emails to Mr. Singer, including messages that forwarded 22 her communications with her counsel and her husband about her case. Dr. Codding made these 23 disclosures voluntarily, and those disclosures enabled Pearson Education to obtain from Mr. 24 Singer these communications. Additionally, Dr. Codding did not object or move to quash Pearson 25 Education’s subpoena of Mr. Singer, either when Pearson Education first notified her about the 26 subpoena or at any point until five days after Pearson Education filed the communications as an 27 28 ORDER – No. 18-cv-00817-LB 3 1 attachment to its reply brief. The court holds that Dr. Codding has waived any claim of work- 2 product protection that she might have had over these text messages and emails. Dr. Codding argues that her text messages and emails contain privileged attorney-client 4 communications.10 By sending these text messages and emails to Mr. Singer — a third party — 5 Dr. Codding waived any attorney-client privilege she might have had over them. Pac. Pictures 6 Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (In re Pac. Pictures Corp.), 679 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2012) 7 (“[V]oluntarily disclosing privileged documents to third parties will generally destroy the 8 privilege. The reason behind this rule is that, ‘[i]f clients themselves divulge such information to 9 third parties, chances are that they would also have divulged it to their attorneys, even without the 10 protection of the privilege.’ Under such circumstances, there simply is no justification to shut off 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 judicial inquiry into these communications.”) (citations omitted). The fact that Dr. Codding 12 forwarded privileged attorney-client communications to Mr. Singer does not strengthen her claim 13 of work product over these communications; to the contrary, it evidences her disregard for 14 maintaining protection over them.11 Dr. Codding also argues that she has an absolute right to communicate with former Pearson 15 16 Education employees to obtain relevant information about her case.12 This argument is beside the 17 point. Whether she has the right to communicate with Pearson Education employees does not 18 automatically entitle her to cloak those communications under a claim of work-product protection. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 117 at 4. 11 Dr. Codding cites Schoenmann v. FDIC, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2014), in which the court held that a party litigant who contacted a third party and, through a series of email messages, persuaded the third party to sign a declaration drafted by the party’s lawyer did not waive workproduct protection over those emails and drafts of the declaration. Id. at 1012–14. That case is inapposite. Dr. Codding’s disclosures to Mr. Singer — which include communications Dr. Codding had with her counsel and her husband’s views on the case — go far beyond the documents at issue in Schoenmann. 12 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 117 at 5. 28 ORDER – No. 18-cv-00817-LB 4 CONCLUSION 1 The court holds that Dr. Codding waived any claim of work-product protection she might have 2 3 had over the text messages and emails she sent to Mr. Singer.13 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April 12, 2019 ______________________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 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 13 28 Because Dr. Codding does not have a valid claim of work-product protection, her argument that the Protective Order requires Pearson Education to delete or destroy the materials is moot. ORDER – No. 18-cv-00817-LB 5

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?