Brigiotta's Farmland Produce and Garden Center, Inc. v. United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc. et al

Filing 593

ORDER overruling and denying re ( 587 in 4:10-cv-00307-BLW-CWD, 631 in 4:10-md-02186-BLW-CWD, 182 in 4:13-cv-00251-BLW-CWD) Defendant;s Objection to Magistrate Judge Dale's Order. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Associated Cases: 4:10-md-02186-BLW-CWD, 4:10-cv-00307-BLW-CWD, 4:13-cv-00251-BLW-CWD(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

IN RE: FRESH AND PROCESS
POTATOES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Case No. 4:10-MD-2186-BLW
ORDER

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it certain defendants’ objection to Magistrate Judge Dale’s
Order on a motion to compel (Dkt. 631). The Court requested that each side file a short
brief addressing the objection. The parties complied, and the Court now issues the
following decision.
ANALYSIS
A District Judge has authority to review pretrial rulings by a Magistrate Judge
under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Upon a party’s timely objection to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling,
the District Judge may reverse the ruling if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(A). Here, Defendants timely objected to
Magistrate Judge Dale’s Order. (Dkt. 631).

ORDER - 1

The Court has reviewed Judge Dale’s Order and the parties’ briefs, and
determined that Judge Dale’s decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Contrary to Defendants’ contention, Judge Dale decided the very issue presented to her –
the scope and application of the parties’ stipulation to waive the attorney/client privilege
(Dkt. 494).
The issue was before Judge Dale after Plaintiffs argued that Defendants had
refused to produce documents which should have been produced under the broad
language of the parties’ stipulation. Defendants justified their position by arguing that the
stipulation was limited to documents reflecting defendants’ belief that their conduct was
lawful. Judge Dale determined that it was not. Upon review of the parties’ stipulation, the
parties’ briefs, and an in camera review of documents potentially subject to the
stipulation, Judge Dale determined that the stipulation was not so narrowly tailored. In
turn, Judge Dale ordered Defendants to produce the documents cited in Appendix A,
category 1, and to limit their claim of privilege by determining the “extremely limited set
of documents, if any, to be withheld on the basis of the Court’s order.” Judge Dale Order
at 15 (Dkt. 625).
Not only was Judge Dale’s Order not clearly erroneous or contrary to law; it is in
line with my own conclusions. Although I have not reviewed the in camera documents to
a great extent, I have reviewed the briefs and the stipulation in detail. I agree with Judge
Dale that “the privilege is waived with respect to all documents and communications
touching upon these Defendants’ organization under the antitrust laws, and specifically

ORDER - 2

Capper-Volstead, as well as the greater universe of communications concerning
Defendants’ conduct for which Defendants sought counsel’s advice.” Judge Dale Order at
12 (Dkt. 625). Disclosure of such documents is the only way to provide Plaintiffs with
the context in which the advice was given. Accordingly, Defendants’ Objection will be
overruled.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge Dale’s Order (Dkt. 631) is
OVERRULED and DENIED.

2.

The Stipulation to Extend Deadline to File Motion to Compel Production of
Documents from Jones Waldo Privilege Log is GRANTED as follows –
the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel production of
documents from the Jones Waldo privilege log is extended until 30 days
after Judge Dale issues her decision on the remaining portions of Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel Production of Documents Identified on Defendants’
Privilege Logs (Dkt. 539).

DATED: May 8, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER - 3