Holland et al v. The Related Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 78

ORDER Re: Joint Discovery Letter by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PETER HOLLAND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 15-cv-03220-JSW (EDL)
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER

v.
THE RELATED COMPANIES, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 68

Defendants.
On May 4, 2016, the Parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Defendants move to

13

quash a subpoena that Plaintiffs served on attorney Shawn Bankson, Defendants’ prior counsel.

14

At the May 13, 2016 hearing, Plaintiffs clarified that they wanted to depose Mr. Bankson on what

15

he meant by stating in his May 28, 2015 letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel that it was Defendants’

16

position that at that time Plaintiff Peter Holland had sufficiently verified his disability but that his

17

request for accommodation was unreasonable. The Court pointed out that such questions appeared

18

to request attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product material.

19

Moreover, although Plaintiffs argued that such protections were waived by an advice of counsel

20

defense, Defendants affirmed that they will not rely on an advice of counsel defense based on

21

advice from Mr. Bankson and other members of his law firm and that they will not call Mr.

22

Bankson as a witness at trial. Also relevant to whether to allow the attorney deposition is the

23

availability of other means to obtain the information. See Villaflor v. Equifax Info., 2010 WL

24

2891627, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2010) (“[B]efore allowing deposition of opposing counsel, a

25

court should consider: ‘the need to depose the lawyer . . . .’” (quoting In re Subpoena Issued to

26

Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2003))). Defendants stated that Plaintiffs recently

27

served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition request concerning, in part, the identity of the individuals

28

involved in determining that Plaintiffs’ request for accommodation would impose an undue

1

burden as stated in Mr. Bankson’s May 28, 2015 letter. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to

2

quash the subpoena is granted without prejudice to a possible future subpoena on Mr. Bankson

3

should Plaintiffs’ attempts to discover the identity of these individuals fail. Additionally, as stated

4

at the hearing, the Parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer on Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatory

5

concerning the identity of these individuals to which Defendants allegedly objected and, if they

6

are unable to resolve any disputes concerning this request, file a joint letter of no more than two

7

pages attaching the interrogatory by May 16, 2016.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2016

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

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