Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01916/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01916-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lori Bell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VF Jeanswear LP, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01916-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the parties’ Joint Summary of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 90). On 

December 2, 2015, the Court ordered Defendant VF Jeanswear LP to provide 

“unredacted copies of all of the documents at issue for which Defendant claims attorneyclient privilege to the Court for in camera review.” (Doc. 91, Order.) On December 3, 

2015, Defendant delivered to chambers three unredacted e-mail messages corresponding 

with the redacted versions it had previously disclosed to Plaintiff. The Court has 

reviewed the three unredacted messages and concludes that the redacted portions of two 

of the messages—those dated January 27, 2014 (from Sam Tucker to Fran Mellette) and 

January 15, 2014 (from Allen Montgomery to Ms. Mellette) contain privileged attorneyclient communications; in other words, it is clear from the substance of the 

communications and surrounding circumstances that Messrs. Montgomery and Tucker 

were communicating with Ms. Mellette in her capacity as an attorney for the purpose of 

seeking legal advice in those two messages. The unredacted portions of those two 

messages shall not be disclosed. 

Case 2:14-cv-01916-JJT Document 95 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 In the remaining message, dated February 26, 2014 from Ms. Mellette to 

Mr. Montgomery and to Kaye McHone, the Court finds that Defendant has not met the 

burden of demonstrating that the redacted portion of the e-mail was either a 

communication for the purpose of delivering legal advice, a message attendant thereto, or 

a communication that would reveal the thought processes of Ms. Mellette acting in the 

capacity of an attorney for the purposes of constituting attorney work product. The Court 

concludes that this last redacted communication is far more likely made in Ms. Mellette’s 

capacity as Director of Human Resources. Defendant shall produce the unredacted 

version of this message to Plaintiff within 48 hours of entry of this Order. 

 The Court further notes that, upon review, neither the privileged nor the 

unprivileged communications it reviewed, even if they all were disclosed, would be likely 

to have any effect, material or otherwise, on the outcome of this litigation. Nonetheless, it 

understands that Plaintiff’s counsel, not knowing what is “behind the curtain,” seeks in 

good faith to uncover information that might reasonably be helpful to their client’s cause, 

and likewise, Defendant’s counsel seeks to uphold a privilege out of a concern that to do 

otherwise might result in being deemed to have waived it in blanket fashion, with 

unintended consequences. 

 Finally, during the pendency of the Court’s review of the materials at issue, 

Plaintiff file its Response to the Court’s December 2, 2015 Order, in which Plaintiff 

suggested that 

“...documents at issue” be deemed to include all documents of any kind 

(memos, letters, emails, etc.) to or from HR VP Fran Mellette which would 

be responsive to Plaintiff’s various Requests for Production, including both 

those which were provided to Plaintiff in redacted form and those which 

were completely withheld under some unannounced claim of privilege and 

not described to Plaintiff. 

(Doc. 92 at 1)(emphasis in original). To this suggestion, the Court responds first that its 

December 2, 2015 Order was clear that Defendant would produce “unredacted copies of 

all of the documents at issue for which Defendant claims attorney-client privilege to the 

Court for in camera review.” (Doc. 91, Order.) In the Court’s view, all means all. It 

Case 2:14-cv-01916-JJT Document 95 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

assumes Defendant has complied with the Order and that there are no other undisclosed 

documents in Defendant’s possession 1) that would be responsive to either Defendant’s 

affirmative discovery obligations or to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and 2) for which 

Defendant claims privilege. In short, there should not be anything else out there 

belonging to this category that has not yet been submitted to the Court for its review. If 

that is not the case, the parties shall advise the Court immediately. 

 That said, discovery in this matter closed on November 6, 2015. Dispositive 

motions have been filed and responded to in this matter already. It is therefore unclear 

why discovery issues are being raised, and potentially expanded, at this juncture, when 

the Court advised the parties at the outset of this case that “it will strictly enforce the 

deadlines set forth in this Rule 16 Scheduling Order.” (Doc. 35 at 1.) The purpose of the 

Scheduling Order and deadlines set within it is to move the case forward toward 

resolution, both for the sake of the parties, who need and deserve repose in the matter, 

and for the Court, whose scarce resources cannot be interminably bound up in revisiting 

discovery issues after discovery has ended. In short, if there were discovery issues 

between the parties, the parties should have raised them while they were still in the 

discovery phase, and the Court is not inclined to entertain further discovery disputes at 

this late date. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff within 48 hours of 

entry of this Order the unredacted version of the February 26, 2014 e-mail from Fran 

Mellette to Allen Montgomery and Kaye McHone. 

 Dated this 10th day of December, 2015. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01916-JJT Document 95 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 3