Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00065/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00065-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

 07cv0065

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM BEDWELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., etc.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-0065-WQH (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR RETURN OF

DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

The Court convened telephonic conferences on November 26 and

29, 2007 to address a request by Defendant Fish & Richardson P.C.

(“Defendant” or “the firm”) that Plaintiff Suzanne Moreno

(“Plaintiff”) return certain documents in her possession to

Defendant. Plaintiff, in pro se, appeared on her own behalf. 

Matthew Dente, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

A. Background

On November 2, 2007, Defendant’s counsel, with the Court’s

permission, submitted a letter to the undersigned in which he

advised that he had learned, through discovery, that Plaintiff

was in the possession of “certain confidential documents”

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 7
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 07cv0065

belonging to Defendant. Defendant’s counsel requested that the

Court convene a teleconference to discuss the return of the

documents to Defendant. 

During the conference calls with the Court, Defendant’s

counsel explained that Plaintiff had, in response to discovery

requests propounded by Defendant, produced copies of documents to

Defendant which Defendant believes are wrongfully in Plaintiff’s

possession. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff, who

previously worked as a paralegal for Defendant, took these

documents from Defendant upon her departure from the firm without

the firm’s authorization. These documents include Document Nos.

6-15, consisting of Plaintiff’s time records reflecting work she

performed on behalf of firm clients, and Document Nos. 1-5 and

16-55, consisting of e-mails between Plaintiff and her managers

and/or the Human Resources department at the firm. As described

by the parties, there are three general categories of e-mails: 

(1) communications regarding Plaintiff’s request for a transfer

to Defendant’s Dallas office, (2) communications regarding

Plaintiff’s reassignment to Defendant’s San Diego office, and (3)

communications regarding Plaintiff’s work assignments. 

Defendant requests that the Court order Plaintiff to return

all of the above documents to it on the basis that the documents

belong to the firm and that Plaintiff is not authorized to

possess them. Defendant argues that the proper method by which

Plaintiff should seek to obtain these documents is via discovery. 

In the alternative, Defendant requests that the Court enter a

protective order. 

//

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 7
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 07cv0065

B. Discussion

1. Documents Containing References to Defendant’s Clients

and Services Performed or to be Performed by Plaintiff

on Behalf of the Firm’s Clients

The Court finds that the time records (Document Nos. 6-15)

and any e-mail(s) regarding Plaintiff’s work assignments

(including Document No. 16), which reportedly contain client

names and relate to services performed or to be performed by

Plaintiff on behalf of the firm’s clients, should be returned to

Defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff may keep an inventory of the

documents returned, but may not keep copies of any such

documents. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain copies of the

documents, she must request them from Defendant via discovery. 

Plaintiff has advised the Court that she is currently in

Dallas due to a matter involving the health of a family member,

and will not return to Washington, D.C., where her documents are

located, until the week of December 17, 2007. The Court

accordingly ORDERS Plaintiff to mail the above-referenced

documents to Defendant’s counsel by no later than December 21,

2007. 

2. Documents Regarding Matters Relating to Plaintiff’s

Individual Status as an Employee of Defendant

The Court finds that the e-mails which concern Plaintiff’s

individual status as an employee of Defendant, such as her

request for a transfer to the Dallas office or her reassignment

to the San Diego office, and which do not contain client names

and concern services performed or to be performed by Plaintiff on

behalf of the firm’s clients, are of a different character and

warrant different treatment than the above documents. Defendant

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 7
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

At the Court’s request, Defendant provided to the Court a copy

of its Confidentiality Policies and Procedures and Plaintiff’s signed

forms acknowledging receipt thereof.

 4 07cv0065

argues that because the transmission of the e-mails occurred on

the firm’s computer system and the e-mails were printed from a

firm computer, the e-mails necessarily belong to Defendant and

could not be copied and taken by Plaintiff without the firm’s

authorization pursuant to Defendant’s Confidentiality Policies

and Procedures.1 Defendant also cites two cases in support of

its position that the e-mails must be returned to the firm and

that Plaintiff engaged in “self-help” discovery by taking the

documents without the firm’s authorization: Pillsbury, Madison &

Sutro v. Schectman, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1279, 1288-89 (1997) and

Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, 35 Cal. App. 4th 620,

640-41 (1995). 

The Court finds first that Defendant is taking too broad a

view of its Confidentiality Policies and Procedures. The Court

has carefully reviewed the policies and procedures and does not

find that they prohibited Plaintiff from printing the subject emails and retaining them for her personal use, even if the emails were transmitted on and printed from the firm’s computers. 

These e-mails do not relate to the representation of a firm

client, but rather relate to Plaintiff’s individual relationship

with her employer. Defendant’s policies do not conclusively

establish that Defendant is the sole owner of these documents,

and the Court finds that the e-mails cannot be swept into the

broad category of property which belongs to the firm.

The Court further finds that the cases cited by Defendant

are distinguishable. In Pillsbury, the California Court of

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 7
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

 5 07cv0065

Appeal upheld a ruling by the trial court that certain documents

that had come into the possession of current and former employees

of the Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro law firm (“Pillsbury”) had been

removed improperly from Pillsbury and were required to be

surrendered to it. The documents at issue were described as

“communications within the human resources department relating to

employees” and, more specifically, as documents “not directed to

any of the former employees concerning their individual status as

employees of [Pillsbury] but, rather, . . . documents relating to

the performance of their duties while employed by the firm.” 

Pillsbury, 55 Cal. App. 4th at 1282 (emphasis added). The emails at issue here are reportedly communications directed to and

from Plaintiff regarding her individual status as an employee at

the firm. Therefore, they are of a completely different

character than the documents at issue in Pillsbury. 

Moreover, the court in Pillsbury found that the employees

there had engaged in “self-help” discovery, described as

“evidence gathering by employees for use in contemplated

litigation against their soon-to-be former employers.” Id. at

1287. Here, Defendant has not established that Plaintiff engaged

in such “self-help” discovery. The mere fact that Plaintiff is

in the possession of these e-mails does not automatically render

them the product of “self-help” discovery. As set forth above,

Defendant has not established that Plaintiff is in wrongful

possession of these documents, and has not demonstrated that

Plaintiff took the e-mails for use in this litigation. The

Pillsbury case, therefore, is distinguishable from the facts of

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 7
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 situation here is completely different from that involved in

Furnish v. Merlo, 128 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 57,755 (D. Or. Aug. 29, 1994),

a case the Pillsbury court discussed at length and whose facts it

deemed “most closely resemble” those in Pillsbury. Pillsbury, 55 Cal.

App. 4th at 1287. In Furnish, “a manager in her final days of

employment gathered confidential documents, including a corporate

compensation list, personnel agreements, and a list of employee stock

options. She then sued for discrimination and turned over her cache

of documents to her counsel for use in the litigation.” Id. at 1286. 

Defendant has made no showing that anything resembling the “self-help

discovery” in Pillsbury and Furnish took place here.

 6 07cv0065

this case.2

The Camp case, cited by Defendant, is also distinguishable. 

Camp involved documents taken from a law firm by a former

employee which consisted of “correspondence or memoranda between

[a firm attorney] and the firm’s clients or other attorneys.” 

Camp, 35 Cal. App. 4th at 640. The California Court of Appeal

upheld the trial court’s ruling that the documents had to be

returned to the law firm as they were protected by the attorneyclient privilege. The e-mails at issue here are of a completely

different character, and are not protected by the attorney-client

privilege. Therefore, Camp does not apply to this situation.

3. Protective Order

While the Court does not believe the entry of a protective

order is mandatory with respect to the e-mails that Plaintiff is

permitted to keep pursuant to this Order, the parties may enter

into a protective order governing the use and dissemination of

confidential documents in this case. 

C. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Defendant’s request for return of documents from Plaintiff is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall return the time records in her

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 7
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

 7 07cv0065

possession (Document Nos. 6-15) as well as any e-mail in her

possession which contains references to Defendant’s client’s

names and services performed or to be performed by Plaintiff for

Defendant’s clients (including Document No. 16). These documents

shall be mailed to Defendant’s counsel by no later than December

21, 2007. Plaintiff shall return these documents to Defendant’s

counsel even in the event that Plaintiff’s motion for stay [Doc.

No. 61] is granted by Judge Hayes in the interim. 

2. Plaintiff is not required to return to Defendant any emails which pertain to her individual status as an employee of

the firm, including her request for a transfer to the Dallas

office or her reassignment to the San Diego office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 68 Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 7