Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware

corporation and WAL-MART REAL

ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,a Delaware

statutory trust

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF TURLOCK, et. al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV F 04-5278 OWW DLB

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW

On May 20, 2005, Plaintiff WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation and

WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust (“Wal-Mart”)

and non-party SAFEWAY, Inc. (“Safeway”), stipulated to transfer Wal-Mart’s motion to

compel Safeway’s compliance with deposition subpoena duces tecum to this Court from the

Northern District of California. On July 25, 2005, the Court granted the motion to compel in

part and ordered Safeway to submit the documents withheld as attorney client privileged or

attorney work product for in camera review within 10 days. On August 8, 2005, Safeway

submitted three (3) e-mails identified on its privilege log and one (1) additional e-mail Safeway

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 145 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

learned of after the filing of its opposition:

(1) September 24, 2005 e-mail from David Bowlby to Mark Wolfe;

(2) September 30, 2003/October 1, 2003 e-mail from David Bowlby to Mark Wolfe

and response;

(3) December 2, 2003 e-mail from David Bowlby; and

(4) November 17, 2003 e-mail from Mark Wolfe to David Bowlby.

On August 31, 2005, Safeway submitted three (3) additional e-mails:

(1) November 24, 2003 e-mail from Mark Wolfe to David Bowlby;

(2) November 25, 2003 e-mail from Mark Wolfe to David Bowlby; and

(3) March 10, 2004 e-mail from Mark Wolfe to David Bowlby. 

DISCUSSION

The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure, confidential communications

between a client and an attorney. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403, 96 S.Ct. 1569,

1577 (1976); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat’l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129; United States v.

Hirsch, 803 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1986). The privilege’s central concern is "to encourage full

and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader

public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice." Zolin, 491 U.S. at 562,

109 S.Ct. at 2625 (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677

(1981). 

After review of the documents, the Court denies Wal-Mart’s motion to compel

production. The documents reflect communications between David Bowlby of Safeway and

Mark Wolfe, who represented and gave legal advice to an organization composed of grocers,

including Safeway. See Declaration of Mark Wolfe in Opposition to Wal Mart’s Motion to

Compel, ¶ 2. Mr. Wolfe states that he confidentially communicated with David Bowlby of

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 145 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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 3

Safeway as a liaison for the group with regard to his work. Id. Review of the documents

confirms Safeway’s description of the documents on the privilege log. The Court therefore

finds that the documents are privileged communications and need not be produced.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 145 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 3