Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1Of course, as the previous order discussed, both parties had long ago agreed that no

privileges had been waived by the inadvertent production per se. However, in the ensuing

dispute about the production of non-privileged documents, the issue evolved into a determination

whether privileges had been waived on account of the dissemination/creation of privileged

documents to or by Friant’s designated experts.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNSEL, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-88-1658 LKK GGH

vs.

KIRK RODGERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 26, 2005, Friant defendants filed a request for clarification of this

court’s September 16, 2005 order. NRDC has now filed a response.

This court’s order of September 16, 2005 addressed whether Friant waived

privileges associated with inadvertently disclosed documents by Friant to NRDC.1 The

documents at issue had been disseminated to, or created by, a variety of Friant’s designated

experts. After in camera review, the court determined that

 (1) when a party determines to disclose otherwise privileged

information with a party’s testifying expert, there is no valid

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1252 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

purpose allowing that expert to testify in matters where the

disclosed information had (or in the exercise of common sense,

must have had) a substantial impact on the substance of the

expert’s testimony-but without reference to, or cross-examination

on, the otherwise privileged, disclosed information. In a related

vein, (2) a previously undisclosed consultant, be that consultant

employed by a party or retained, will not be permitted to feign

ignorance upon designation to testify as an expert with respect to

privileged information, previously known or disclosed, but

purportedly “undisclosed” to that expert after his designation, but

which nevertheless, in the exercise of common sense has some

present, substantial impact (either positive or negative) on the

testimony of that witness. 

Order, filed September 16, 2005, at 7.

The court found that a number of otherwise privileged documents fell into the

categories set forth above, and ordered their disclosure. With respect to one expert, the court

viewed the privileged documents to be of such sensitivity that it offered Friant the choice of dedesignation of the expert (thereby saving the privilege), or using the expert but disclosing the

documents. 

Friant now contends that it has withdrawn designations of various employees and

managers who were previously described as hybrid witnesses (both percipient experts and Rule

26 experts), and therefore the order requiring disclosure of documents reviewed by them should

be inoperative. Friant especially requests clarification as to the court’s order respecting

document number 280, explaining that the court previously found that it did not sufficiently

relate to Richard Moss’ expert testimony to require its disclosure, yet later found that it should be

disclosed because other non-retained experts had ostensibly reviewed it. Friant now represents

that as a result of its withdrawal of the designation of certain non-retained experts, its obligation

to produce this document is negated because it has now not been considered by any Friant Rule

26 designated expert. 

NRDC expresses its primary concern that Friant has redesignated its previously

designated Rule 26 experts as merely percipient experts as a ruse in order to avoid having to

produce documents, but that Friant will attempt to elicit expert testimony from these witnesses

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1252 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

If a farmer testifies that his crops need water or they will die, the undersigned does not

see much of a Rule 26 issue for this testimony. If on the other hand, he testifies that based on his

expertise and review, a particular drip system will not supply enough water for a certain type of

plant, the issue is much closer.

3

anyway. For example, NRDC points out that Mr. Upton, a former non-retained expert who was

copied on privileged documents, is now named as a percipient witness to testify about the impact

on his farm. NRDC wonders why one of hundreds of other farmers in the area, who had not

received privileged documents, could not testify to these matters. 

In regard to the major issue here-- Friant’s withdrawal of previously designated

experts who are now named as percipient experts-- the court understands NRDC’s concern, but

can not rule in an advisory fashion. This court’s order was limited to addressing the motion at

hand, disclosures to designated experts, and specifically declined to fashion a rule for non-Rule

26 witnesses. Order, filed September 16, 2005, at 8 n. 6. At hearing, the court discussed what it

considered Rule 26 expert testimony in comparison to percipient testimony. A percipient expert

can testify to the whys and wherefores of previously expressed opinions. However, if the

percipient witness attempts to express opinions at trial not linked to past opinions, e.g., if he

testifies to the effect of a loss of a certain amount of water on his farm based upon his review of

data and other typical expert information, it may be that he is now simply expressing an opinion

for the purposes of litigation. Without knowing the precise nature of the proposed testimony,

this court can not rule. Suffice to say that Judge Karlton will not permit the charade of a nonRule 26 designated “percipient”expert testifying as if he were a designated Rule 26 expert. Of

course, the trial judge must determine whether the witness is expressing an opinion at all.2 The

extent of these “percipient” experts’ testimony must be fleshed out through discovery so that the

parties can frame their arguments before the district court. 

Therefore, in view of the basis of the court’s previous ruling, primarily based on the rule

that documents disseminated to Rule 26 experts cannot maintain a privileged status, the court

will modify its order requiring production as set forth below. Friant has withdrawn its

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1252 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

designation of certain Rule 26 witnesses which will have an adverse effect; NRDC should not

now have access to documents it would not have otherwise had a right to review. 

NRDC also asserts that documents 142, 260, and 262 must be produced because they

were in fact received by presently designated experts, and these documents had a likely effect on

the expert’s testimony. NRDC is correct.

Finally, NRDC asserts that document 268 should be produced as it was disclosed to third

party government officials. While the court permitted one metamorphosis of issues, it declines to

recognize yet another– the waiver of privilege as a result of disclosure, not to experts, but to third

parties. If there exists such an issue NRDC may raise it by separate motion. Document 268 need

not presently be produced.

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Friant is not required to produce document the following documents: 16, 61,

63, 65, 82, 129, 130, 132, 133, 146, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 179, 202, 219, 220, 224, 235, 258,

259, 263, 265, 268 and 280. 

2. Friant shall produce documents 142, 260, and 262.

3. Documents to be produced pursuant to this and previous orders shall be

produced, if they have not already been produced, no later than October 20, 2005;

4. The undersigned will not entertain any further motions, requests for

clarifications and the like arising out of this or previous, related orders except as noted above for

document 268.

DATED: October 17, 2005

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

NRDC1658.cla

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1252 Filed 10/17/05 Page 4 of 4