City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 169

PROTECTIVE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 139 MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MW)

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RSL Document 169 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

CITY OF SEATTLE,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

Cause No. C16-0107RSL
PROTECTIVE ORDER

11

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order.” Dkt.

14
15

# 139. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation requested the production of all documents the City

16

produced/submitted in a parallel alternative dispute resolution process involving 44 parties and

17

the allocation of costs associated with the investigation and remediation of the Lower Duwamish

18

Waterway (commonly known as the “Duwamish Allocation.”). Both the City and Pharmacia are

19
20
21
22

parties to the Duwamish Allocation, which began in 2014 with the signing of a Memorandum of
Agreement (the “Allocation MOA”) and remains on-going.
In response to Request for Production (“RFP”) 39, the City produced documents that

23

originated separate from and outside of the Allocation and were submitted to the Allocator or

24

participating parties during the mediation. The produced documents include, inter alia, the

25

City’s responses to the Environmental Protection Agency’s requests for information, its

26

sampling data, and information regarding its facilities and operations in and near the Waterway.

27
28

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RSL Document 169 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 5

1

The City objected to producing, and has not produced, documents that it developed solely for use

2

in the Allocation, such as the City’s responses to the Allocator’s inquiries, correspondence

3

between participating parties, memoranda/position papers/declarations it submitted regarding

4
5
6

proposed allocation options, etc. The City argues that these materials are subject to and protected
by a mediation privilege.

7

Washington law protects from discovery mediation communications (RCW 7.07.030(1))

8

if the mediation parties and the mediator have agreed “to mediate in a record that demonstrates

9

an expectation that mediation communications will be privileged against disclosure” (RCW

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

7.07.020(1)(b)). The Allocation MOA contains such a record:
The Participating Parties intend that their communications with the Allocator and
with one another during the Allocation Process, whether written or oral, be kept
confidential among the Participating Parties and the Allocator to the fullest extent
allowed by law. The Allocation Process shall be considered a mediation that is
covered by RCW 42.56.600 (exemption from public disclosure for records of
mediation communications) and RCW 7.07.030 (mediation communications are
privileged).
Dkt. # 139-3 at 17. The Allocation MOA further provides that information submitted in the
Allocation cannot be “used as evidence of any admission of liability, law or fact, a waiver of any
right or defense, nor an estoppel against any Participating Party.” Dkt. # 139-3 at 33.
Pharmacia does not dispute that the withheld documents are mediation communications 1

21

or that the parties to the Allocation intended to keep such materials confidential when they

22

agreed to mediate and signed the Allocation MOA. It argues, however, that the City has waived

23

the privilege by (1) filing this litigation and (2) failing to oppose another participant’s production

24
25
1

27

“Mediation communications” include statements made during a mediation or statements made
“for the purposes of considering, conducting, participating in, initiating, continuing, or reconvening a
mediation.” RCW 7.07.010(2).

28

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

26

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RSL Document 169 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 5

1

of its own mediation communications in a lawsuit against its insurers. Neither argument has

2

merit.

3

(1) Filing this Litigation

4
5

The promise to keep mediation communications confidential - and the statutory

6

protections for such communications - do not evaporate simply because one or more parties

7

ultimately resorts to litigation in order to resolve the dispute. Under the federal discovery rules,

8

Pharmacia is entitled to discover all relevant, non-privileged documents, facts, and information.

9

The universe of discoverable documents does not, however, include materials protected by the

10
11
12

mediation privilege, i.e., materials generated for and exchanged in the Duwamish Allocation.
The privilege can be waived, but Pharmacia bears the burden of showing that the City has

13

“disclose[d] or ma[de] a representation about a mediation communication which prejudices

14

[Pharmacia]. RCW 7.07.040(2). Even then, the waiver is “only to the extent necessary for

15

[Pharmacia] to respond to the representation or disclosure.” Id.

16
17
18
19

Waiver of the mediation privilege can occur in a number of disparate circumstances. If,
for example, the City were attempting to invalidate an allocation that favored Pharmacia by
arguing that it had never agreed to be bound by the Allocator’s decision (see Stuart v. Korey,

20

2017 WL 149636, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2017)), offered as evidence a declaration that had

21

been submitted to the Allocator but was refusing to produce other declarations from the same

22

declarant or regarding the same subject (see Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Rainier Petroleum

23
24
25
26

Corp., 2017 WL 6515970, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2017)), or were suing its insurer to
recover amounts it had agreed or been compelled to pay in the Allocation (see Bradfield v. MidContinent Cas. Co., 15 F. Supp.3d 1253, 1256-57 (M.D. Fla. 2014)), it would arguably have put

27

mediation communications at issue, and Pharmacia would arguably be entitled to discover

28

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RSL Document 169 Filed 09/28/20 Page 4 of 5

1

additional mediation materials as necessary to respond to the disclosure or representation.

2

Pharmacia has not, however, identified any disclosure of, representation regarding, or reliance

3

on a mediation communication by the City. It does no more than point out that this litigation and

4
5

the Duwamish Allocation have many overlapping issues, arguing that the documents it seeks

6

“undoubtedly contain information relevant to the issue of causation” and “undoubtedly feature

7

key information regarding the damages sought by the City.” Dkt. # 140 at 5. Pharmacia has

8

ample tools under the federal rules of discovery with which to investigate and discover the

9

underlying facts regarding causation and the City’s costs/expenses from non-privileged sources.

10
11
12

The mere fact that mediation communications are relevant to issues in this litigation does not
waive the privilege. Rather, Pharmacia must show that the City used mediation communications

13

in a way that prejudices it, necessitating further disclosures so that Pharmacia can respond and

14

defend itself. Having failed to show that the City disclosed or made a representation regarding

15

privileged communications, Pharmacia is not entitled to production of documents that were

16
17
18
19
20

generated for the mediation, disclosed with the expectation of confidentiality, and subject to the
mediation privilege.
(2) Failure to Object to King County’s Waiver
King County, another participant in the Duwamish Allocation, sued its insurer for the

21

costs King County incurred in the Allocation. When the insurer served requests for production of

22

documents related to the Allocation, King County turned over documents that it had produced to

23
24
25
26

other participants, but refused to provide, based on the MOA and Washington law, documents
that were produced by, or reflect the work of, other parties to the Allocation. The insurer filed a
motion to compel. The City of Seattle intervened in that action, lodging “vociferous objections”

27

to the production of its mediation privileged materials. King County v. Travelers Indem. Co.,

28

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RSL Document 169 Filed 09/28/20 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3

2018 WL 1994119, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018).
Pharmacia argues that, by failing to oppose King County’s production of its own
mediation documents, the City waived the mediation privilege. This argument is illogical and

4
5

finds no support in the case law. The privilege the City successfully asserted in the King County

6

coverage litigation is the same privilege it asserts here. The documents the City sought to protect

7

in the King County coverage litigation are the same documents it seeks to protect here. There has

8

been no waiver. That King County waived its own privilege so that it could pursue an insurance

9

coverage claim has no impact on the City’s claim of privilege in the circumstances presented

10
11
12

here. As the Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein recognized “under these circumstances the privilege
at issue [was] not even King County’s to waive.” Id.

13
14

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a protective order relieving it from

15

any further obligation to respond to RFP 39 is GRANTED. Because the City has not waived the

16
17
18

mediation privilege, the City’s mediation communications cannot be used in this litigation, either
as direct evidence or as the basis for expert testimony.2

19
20

Dated this 28th day of September, 2020.

21

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26

2

27

Plaintiff’s request that the Court exclude any expert who has seen privileged mediation
communications is DENIED without prejudice to the issue being raised in a more concrete setting.

28

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 5