Nathalie Thuy Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. et al

Filing 203

Interim Order on 196 Discovery Dispute Joint Report 1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/8/16. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2016)

E-Filed 2/8/16

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATHALIE THUY VAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-03791-LHK (HRL)
INTERIM ORDER ON DISCOVERY
DISPUTE JOINT REPORT 1

v.
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 195, 196

Defendants.

12

Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van (“Van”) sues Language Line Services, Inc. and Language Line

13

LLC (“Defendants”) for alleged violations of state and federal labor laws. The parties met in early

14

December of 2015 in order to discuss and perhaps resolve their outstanding discovery disputes,

15

but they were not able to resolve all of their disputes. The parties therefore filed Discovery

16

Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) 1. Dkt. No. 196 at 1-2.

17

Defendants rely substantially upon privilege claims to justify their decisions to withhold

18

discovery materials requested by Van. The federal common law governs Defendants’ privilege

19

claims because the discovery materials at issue relate to federal claims and defenses for which

20

state law does not supply the rules of decision. Fed. R. Evid. 501. A party that claims a federal

21

privilege bears the burden to show that the claimed privilege applies to the discovery materials at

22

issue. E.g., Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 2010). Privilege claims

23

“obstruct the search for truth,” U.S. v. Roberson, 859 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 1988), and

24

therefore federal courts narrowly construe privilege claims to serve the purposes underlying those

25

privileges, In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2012). A party may

26

waive the privileges asserted in a discovery response if that party fails to timely produce a

27

privilege log that clarifies which documents have been withheld and which specific privileges

28

might justify those withholdings. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for

1
2

Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005).
Defendants do not assert in DDJR 1 that any particular privilege claim applies to any
Likewise, Defendants’ discovery responses repeatedly assert that some

3

particular document.

4

privilege applies to some documents, but those responses do not state which privileges Defendants

5

had in mind. Defendants, at best, notified the court of their intent to provide a partial and untimely

6

privilege log to Van. Dkt. No. 195. Defendants have not provided the court with an adequate

7

basis to review any of their privilege claims and, if anything, the notice of intent to provide an

8

untimely privilege log to Van raises the possibility that Defendants have waived some of the

9

privilege claims they rely upon in DDJR 1.
No later than February 15, 2016, Defendants shall: (1) lodge for in-camera review each

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

document at issue in DDJR 1 that they have withheld under a privilege theory; (2) submit a

12

privilege log that describes each document and lists each privilege claim Defendants believe

13

applies to each document; and (3) file a statement, supported by a competent declaration, that

14

explains why Defendants did not provide a timely privilege log to Van.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/8/16

17
18
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2