Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06556-REC-SMS

ORDER re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

(Doc. Nos./Entries:

44, 49, 54)

The parties, through their respective counsel, contacted this

Court telephonically on November 1, 2005, for resolution of a

discovery dispute involving the claim that defendants obtained

attorney-client privilege and/or work-product privilege documents

through discovery. Kevin G. Little, Esq., appeared telephonically

on behalf of plaintiff. Gregory L. Myers, Esq., of Myers &

Mayfield appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant Twedt. 

James D. Weakley, Esq., of Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP,

appeared telephonically on behalf of City defendant.

Plaintiff claims the disclosure of documents was inadvertent

rather than intentional. Defendants claim if privileges apply to

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 58 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

2

the documents, the privileges have been waived. This Court ordered

briefing by all parties and set the matter for further informal

hearing on November 15, 2005.

Upon review of the letter briefs from all parties and oral

arguments presented informally and telephonically, this Court finds

that of the 1,859 pages of documents produced by plaintiff and her

attorney, pursuant to City Defendant’s Request for Production of

Documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 34, plaintiff

claims attorney-client and/or work-product privilege to 12 pages,

identified by Bate stamp Nos. 1038, 1064-1066, 1121, 1123-1126,

1131-1132, and 1139-1140. The remaining 1,847 documents are nonprivileged. Plaintiff claims the privileged documents were

inadvertently disclosed to defendants. Defendants claim that if

the documents were privileged, any privilege has been waived by

plaintiff and her attorney by plaintiff’s voluntary and/or

inadvertent disclosure.

It is the ORDER of this Court that plaintiff and her attorney

have WAIVED any claim of privilege.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 58 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2