Simmons v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC et al

Filing 68

ORDER granting 59 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute Regarding Disclosure of the "Project Fleming" document. As provided herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of showing the document to be privileged and, even if it was privileged, the privilege has been waived. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 3/8/13. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 11cv2889-WQH (MDD)

vs.

14
15
16
17
18

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE:
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S
“PROJECT FLEMING”
DOCUMENT
[ECF NO. 59]

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties to determine a

19

discovery dispute. The motion was filed February 25, 2013. The dispute

20

centers upon a document referred to as the “Project Fleming” document

21

which was produced in discovery by Plaintiff. The document was used in

22

the deposition of Plaintiff and although initially stating that he prepared

23

the document for himself, Plaintiff later stated that he thought it was

24

privileged. Defendant challenges the assertion of privilege for this

25

document and asserts that even if it was privileged, the privilege has

26

been waived. Plaintiff asserts that the document is privileged and there

27

has been no waiver. (ECF No. 59). The Court held a hearing on the

28

motion on March 5, 2013. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion
-1-

11cv2889-WQH (MDD)

1

is GRANTED.
Background

2
3

For a detailed exposition of the background facts of this litigation,

4

see the Order issued by the Hon. William Q. Hayes on May 24, 2012,

5

granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to compel

6

arbitration. (ECF No. 37). As a consequence of that Order, the only

7

claims pending before the Court at this time are Plaintiff’s claims for

8

employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and

9

Cal.Govt.Code § 12940(a).

Plaintiff asserts that he was discriminated

10

against by Defendant in his employment due to his membership in the

11

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

12

Legal Standard

13

It is axiomatic that a party asserting the attorney-client privilege

14

has the burden of establishing the existence of the attorney-client

15

relationship and the privileged nature of the communication. United

16

States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010). A court is to

17

construe the privilege strictly, as it “impedes full and free discovery of

18

the truth.” Id. (citations omitted). The party asserting privilege bears

19

the burden of satisfying this eight-part test:

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
professional legal advisor in his capacity as such, (3) the
21
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in
confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance
22
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by
the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.
23 Id. (citation omitted).
20

24

A disclosure of a communication protected by the attorney-client

25

privilege in a federal proceeding does not constitute a waiver of the

26

privilege if the disclosure is inadvertent; the holder of the privilege took

27

reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and the holder of the privilege

28

took reasonable steps to rectify the error including following Federal
-2-

11cv2889-WQH (MDD)

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Fed.R.Ev. 502(b).
Discussion

2
3

The Project Fleming document consists of two handwritten pages.

4

It has been received and reviewed by the Court in camera. There is

5

nothing in the contents of the document that suggests that it was

6

prepared in connection with the receipt of legal advice.

7

The Project Fleming document was provided by Plaintiff to

8

Defendant on December 19, 2012, in response to discovery requests.

9

(ECF No. 59 at 51). On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff was deposed by

10

Defendant. (ECF No. 59-2). The document was presented to Plaintiff

11

who identified the handwriting as his own, said that he created it to

12

make note of his concerns and that he wrote it for himself. (Id. at 63).

13

For the next approximately six minutes, covering four pages of transcript

14

Plaintiff answered approximately 30 questions about the document. (Id.

15

at 64-67). Counsel for Defendant then re-asked Plaintiff whether he

16

created the document “solely for himself and not for any other purpose?”

17

This time, Plaintiff answered, “An attorney. I thought this was attorney-

18

client protected.” (Id. at 67-68). In follow-up questioning, Plaintiff

19

admitted that at the time he created the document he had not retained

20

an attorney and had not yet been terminated from employment. (Id. at

21

68-69). Counsel for Plaintiff refused to let Plaintiff answer any further

22

questions about the document including the critical foundational

23

question of whether he had prepared it at the request of an attorney.

24

(Id. at 69-70). In a letter to Defendant on February 7, 2013, Plaintiff

25

confirmed the assertion of privilege regarding this document and sought

26

its return. (ECF No. 59-3).

27
28

1

The Court will use the page numbering supplied by ECF throughout rather than
the original page numbering of the original document.
-3-

11cv2889-WQH (MDD)

1

In connection with the instant dispute, Plaintiff filed a declaration

2

in which he stated that he met with his supervisor on or about February

3

16, 2011, and was concerned that he might be terminated from

4

employment. (ECF No. 59-4). Plaintiff claims that

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

“shortly after that meeting I contacted an attorney with
whom I had a many year relationship to assist me with work
place issues. I personally prepared [the Project Fleming]
document to assist my attorney with these issues.”
(Id.). Plaintiff concedes that he delivered the document to his current
attorneys without identifying it as potentially privileged. (Id.). Counsel
for Plaintiff confirms that he was not aware that the document may be
privileged until Plaintiff said so at his deposition. (ECF No. 59-3).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the
Project Fleming document is privileged. Plaintiff does not state
unequivocally that he prepared this document either while engaged with
an attorney, regardless of whether or not the attorney was retained, or
at the request of the attorney. The attorney is not identified nor the
date of the contact between Plaintiff and the attorney. Considering that
the privilege is to be strictly construed, this showing is insufficient.
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d at 1156.
Even if privileged, the Court finds that privilege was waived.
Plaintiff, as the holder of the privilege, produced it to his counsel without
taking any efforts to identify it as privileged. Plaintiff answered 30
questions about the document before asserting privilege and, in finally
asserting privilege, gave an answer completely contrary about the
creation of the document than he gave prior to being asked in depth
about the document. Finally, it was not until another approximately
three weeks had passed before counsel for Plaintiff acted to protect the
document under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(B). Specifically, the Court finds
that Plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure nor to
-4-

11cv2889-WQH (MDD)

1

rectify the error as required by Fed.R.Ev. 502(b).
Conclusion

2
3

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel production

4

of the “Project Fleming” document is GRANTED. Defendant may retain

5

and make use of the document consistent with law.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: March 8, 2013

9
10

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

11cv2889-WQH (MDD)