Munguia-Brown et al v. Equity Residential et al

Filing 285

Discovery Order re: 281 Joint Letter Regarding Discovery Dispute: EQR's Communications Regarding the 1999 PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report filed by Equity Residential, Javanni Munguia-Brown, David Bonfanti, EQR-Woodland Park A Limite d Partnership, Norma Rodriguez, ERP Operating Limited Partnership, Angelina Magana, Equity Residential Management, LLC, EQR-Woodland Park B Limited Partnership. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 3/23/2021. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2021)

Case 4:16-cv-01225-JSW Document 285 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-01225-JSW (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 281
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

The parties have filed a joint discovery letter brief at ECF No. 281. They have a dispute

14

concerning Defendants’ claim of attorney-client privilege and work product over four documents,

15

numbered 7, 13, 18 and 23 on the privilege log. They want this dispute resolved quickly so that

16

Plaintiffs can use any documents Defendants are ordered to produce at the March 31, 2021

17

deposition of James Fiffer. Accordingly, the Court will truncate its legal discussion to get out an

18

order quickly. The Court has reviewed the documents in camera.

19

The Court assumes familiarity with its prior orders at ECF Nos. 171, 196 and 273. Briefly,

20

the Court found a subject matter waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to legal advice from

21

outside counsel and in-house counsel concerning the legality of the late fee. The Court also found

22

a waiver of work product protection but interpreted the “same subject matter” requirement in

23

Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a)(2) to exclude legal advice made squarely in the defense of this

24

lawsuit. The current dispute is over a claim of work product related to a prior lawsuit, but the

25

Court’s view remains the same: “The Court understands that in the course of defending litigation,

26

counsel must be able to candidly advise their clients.” ECF No. 273 at 9.

27
28

That is enough to resolve this dispute. Documents 13, 18 and 23 are outside counsel work
product generated in the course of defending litigation. So are Christopher Healey’s handwritten

Case 4:16-cv-01225-JSW Document 285 Filed 03/23/21 Page 2 of 2

1

notes on document 7. The Court orders Defendants to produce document 7 with Healey’s notes

2

redacted.1 The balance of this motion to compel is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: March 23, 2021

6
THOMAS S. HIXSON
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
28

1

During the hearing, Defendants stated that the underlying data in document 7 had been produced
elsewhere, so there was no need to produce a redacted version of the document, as doing so would
only indicate what items counsel commented on. Defendants subsequently clarified that the
underlying data had not been produced, and they offered to produce document 7 with redactions.
2