Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01377/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01377-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bruce W. Anderson,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois

Pension Fun Board of Trustees,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-1377 PHX-DGC

ORDER

As the result of a discovery conference call held on May 10, 2006, the Court ordered

Defendants to provide the Court, in camera, with copies of documents withheld as privileged

and work product. The Court also directed the parties to file memoranda on the applicability

of the privilege and work product protections claimed by Defendants. Doc. #66. After

receiving the parties’ memoranda, the Court directed Defendants to provide additional

briefing. Doc. #71. The Court has now reviewed the memoranda filed by the parties

(Docs. ##67, 68) as well as the additional memorandum filed by Defendants in response to

the Court’s order (Doc. #73).

The Court has reviewed the documents submitted in camera by Defendants. They

reflect communications between Defendants’ employee Jose Collin and outside attorneys

regarding Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. The documents constitute attorney-client

communications that occurred in anticipation of litigation.

The Ninth Circuit has noted that the attorney-client privilege is “perhaps, the most

sacred of all legally recognized privileges, and its preservation is essential to the just and

Case 2:05-cv-01377-DGC Document 74 Filed 06/23/06 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 -

orderly operation of our legal system.” United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504, 510 (9th Cir.

1997); see also United States v. Mett, 178 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 1999). The party

seeking to pierce the privilege bears the burden of showing that an exception exists. Bauer,

132 F.3d at 509. 

Plaintiff makes three arguments in support of his request for disclosure of the

documents. The Court will consider them individually.

First, Plaintiff asserts that if the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation,

then the Court should find as a matter of law that Defendants acted in bad faith in deciding

Plaintiff’s claim. This argument misapprehends the nature of the work product protection

provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). The protection applies when litigation

is anticipated, whether desired or not. It does not require that Defendants planned to litigate

with Plaintiff, nor that Defendants believed their position untenable and that litigation

therefore was likely. Rather, if Defendants had a disagreement with Plaintiff and litigation

by Plaintiff was a possible outcome of the disagreement, then materials prepared in

anticipation of such litigation would be protected as attorney work product. The Court

cannot conclude that a party anticipating such litigation necessarily acts in bad faith.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s bad faith argument goes to the ultimate merits of the decision to be

made in this case and not to the question of whether the documents in question are

discoverable.

Second, Plaintiff argues that if he is precluded from reviewing the privileged

documents, the Court in fairness should not apply an abuse of discretion standard to

Defendants’ benefits decision. This argument also goes to the merits of the claim to be

decided in this case, not to the discoverability of the documents. Plaintiff will have an

opportunity to address the appropriate standard of review in this case.

Third, Plaintiff argues that the documents are not protected because of the fiduciary

exception to the attorney-client privilege. See Petz v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 113 F.R.D. 494

(D.Conn. 1985). The Court does not agree. The documents withheld by Defendants and

reviewed by the Court in camera all concern Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 2:05-cv-01377-DGC Document 74 Filed 06/23/06 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 -

Courts have held that such communications do not fall within the fiduciary exception to the

privilege. See Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance, 191 F.R.D. 606, 610 (N.D.Cal. 2000).

Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that the attorney-client privilege and

work product protections claimed by Defendants are invalid or should give way to his

discovery requests. The Court will not compel Defendants to disclose the documents

reviewed in camera.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01377-DGC Document 74 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 3