Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN D. STEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE 

DISTRICT, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-cv-2524-BTM-BGS

ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

On December 18, 2013, the Court instructed Defendants to file a motion to 

exclude any evidence they believed to be subject to the attorney-client privilege. The 

briefing on this motion is now complete, but the parties have failed to identify the 

specific evidence at issue. The Court cannot determine if a particular statement is 

privileged unless the statement and its context are presented by the parties. Vague 

generalities will not suffice. See United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 1000 (9th 

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 156 Filed 04/07/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

Cir. 2002) (“A party claiming the privilege must identify specific communications 

and the grounds supporting the privilege as to each piece of evidence over which 

privilege is asserted.” (internal citation omitted)); Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat’l 

Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992) (“blanket assertions of the privilege are 

extremely disfavored.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Accordingly, the parties must file supplemental briefing on this matter. The 

Court notes that Mr. Stein’s deposition is scheduled for April 12, 2014. Defendants

shall file a supplemental brief by April 25, 2014, identifying the specific testimony

and documents produced in discovery that they believe are subject to the attorneyclient privilege or duty of confidentiality. 

Plaintiff shall file a supplemental response by May 9, 2014. The hearing 

scheduled for April 9, 2014 is continued to May 22, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. The Court 

reminds the parties that it will only consider a motion to seal the supplemental brief 

and response after a public redacted version of the same has been filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2014 _____________________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 156 Filed 04/07/14 Page 2 of 2