Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00858/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00858-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Fox Salerno,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Henry Munoz, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-858-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Seal Defendant Ellis’ Notice to the Court of

Putative Defendant Munoz and Carlson Correct Work Address,” (Doc. 29) Plaintiff seeks to

seal the aforementioned Notice because it refers to letter which Plaintiff wrote to his criminal

defense attorney that is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Carlson, Munoz and Ellis

seized and read a letter Plaintiff wrote to his criminal attorney. Plaintiff states that, in that

letter, he admitted to a criminal act and asked his attorney to contact the Attorney General’s

office to resolve the issue. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants’ action,

he was convicted of a disciplinary violation and a criminal investigation was opened against

him. 

After the Court ordered service on Defendants Carlson, Munoz, and Ellis,

Plaintiff had some difficulty serving Defendants Munoz and Carlson. On September 10,

2010, counsel for Defendant Ellis filed a “Notice of Putative Defendants Munoz and

Case 2:10-cv-00858-ROS Document 32 Filed 10/07/10 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 -

Carlson’s Correct Work Addresses,” doc 25, to help facilitate service on those Defendants.

Counsel explained that Defendants should be served at work, rather than at home, because

Plaintiff had previously sought to obtain the home addresses of several prison employees

for improper purposes. To support her point, counsel for Defendant Ellis referred to the

content of the letter that Plaintiff has written to his attorney in a criminal matter which

forms the basis of this action. (Doc. 25 at 2) The Notice includes a single sentence that

briefly describes the letter which forms the basis of the Complaint. 

Plaintiff contends that the September 10, 2010 Notice should be placed

under seal because it refers to a privileged communication between Plaintiff and his

criminal attorney. As discussed below, the single sentence in the September 10, 2010

Notice which refers to the letter Plaintiff wrote to his criminal attorney does not include

information that is currently protected by the attorney-client privilege because Plaintiff

has waived the privilege by affirmatively placing the letter at issue in his Complaint. 

Federal common law recognizes a privilege for communications between

client and attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, provided such

communications were intended to be confidential. See generally Weinstein’s Federal

Evidence, Chp. 503. The attorney-client privilege has been recognized as “the oldest of

the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.” Upjohn Co.

v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). The privilege, however, is not absolute. The

privilege may be waived by the client either implicitly, by placing privileged matters in

controversy, or explicitly, by turning over privileged documents. Inadvertent disclosure

can also result in a waiver of the privilege. See Weil v. Investment/Indicators, 647 F.2d

18, 24 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Here, Plaintiff has waived the attorney-client privilege by placing the letter

he wrote to his criminal attorney at issue. See U.S. v. Blizerian, 962 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d

Cir. 1991) (defendant’s assertion of good faith defense to charges of fraud based on

advice of counsel, waived attorney-client privilege); SNK Corp. of America v. Atlus

Dream Entertainment Co. Ltd., 188 F.R.D. 556, 573 (N.D.Cal. 1999) (where party

Case 2:10-cv-00858-ROS Document 32 Filed 10/07/10 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 -

injected issue of reliance on advice of counsel into suit, attorney-client privilge waived).

In fact, the letter is at the heart of Plaintiff’s entire Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint

states that he “wrote a letter to his criminal attorney of record (John W. Rood) concerning

ADOC investigation.” (Doc. 1 at 3) “In the letter Plaintiff admitted to a criminal act and

asked his attorney to contact Arizona Attorney General to resolve the issue.” (Doc. 1 at

3) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Munoz and Carlson “seized the letter, read it,

photocopied it, issued disciplinaries and sent it to C.I.U. Ellis.” (Doc. 1 at 3) By placing

the letter and its content at issue, Plaintiff has waived the attorney-client privilege at least

with respect to the portions of that letter that form the basis of his cause of action. 

Moreover, in the Complaint itself, Petitioner states that he admitted to a criminal act in

the letter to his criminal attorney. The September 10, 2010 Notice which Plaintiff seeks

to have placed under seal states that “Plaintiff’s lawsuit concerns a letter in which he

claimed that he had arranged for the murders of two ADC employees.” (Doc. 25 at 2) 

Although this sentence provides more detail regarding the content of the letter than

Plaintiff provided in his Complaint, it does not reveal privileged information because it

only summarizes the content of a letter which Plaintiff himself has placed at issue. The

Court finds no basis to seal the September 10, 2010 Notice. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Seal Defendant Ellis’ Notice

to the Court of Putative Defendant Munoz and Carlson Correct Work Address,” doc. 29,

is DENIED. 

DATED this 7th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00858-ROS Document 32 Filed 10/07/10 Page 3 of 3