Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00246/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00246-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.V., through his guardian ad litem Concepcion Varela, challenges actions taken by PanamaBuena Vista Union School District related to his education. Plaintiff asserts Ms. Varela speaks only 

Spanish and Gloria Zepeda, who is employed by Plaintiff’s counsel, provided translation services 

between counsel and Ms. Varela. Plaintiff seeks “protective order prohibiting discovery related to 

communications, conversations, investigations, observations and impressions formed by Gloria Zepeda 

that relate to Plaintiff A.V. and his parents or investigations of facts because such discovery is 

prohibited by attorney-client privilege, work produce and confidentiality.” (Doc. 72 at 2) Defendant 

objects to the issuance of a protective order, asserting Plaintiff has “no reasonable basis for a protective 

order to prevent the deposition of Gloria Zepeda.” (Doc. 80 at 5, emphasis omitted) For the following 

reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART.

///

A.V., a minor by and through Guardian ad 

Litem CONCEPCION VARELA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION 

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00246 - MCE - JLT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 72)

Case 1:15-cv-00246-MCE-JLT Document 87 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Background

A.V. asserts he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type. (Doc. 7 at 2). 

He alleges he “is a disabled student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation act and has a suspected 

disability under the IDEA.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts he was “was consistently and regularly disciplined 

for behavioral incidents but the District failed to record his classroom removals.” (Id. at 3) For 

example, Plaintiff contends that during the 2014-2015 school year, he “had been removed from school 

or classes in excess of 10-days due to behavioral issues” by October 2014. (Id.)

Plaintiff participated in two special education administrative hearings, and contends 

“Defendant District failed to provide an assessment plan within statutory guidelines, failed to provide 

parent with procedural rights, failed to translate documents and failed to hold a legally compliant 

Manifestation Determination under both Section 504 and the IDEA.” (Doc. 7 at 3) He now appeals 

the decisions rendered by the administrative law judge.

Plaintiff reports that Gloria Zepeda attended IEPs and Early Resolution Sessions as an 

employee of Plaintiff’s counsel, Nicole Amey. (Doc. 72) According to Plaintiff, Ms. Zepeda “is an 

advocate and translator for plaintiffs’ attorney and worked in that capacity during due process hearings 

and during this instant lawsuit.” (Id. at 2) After Defendant scheduled the deposition of Ms. Zepeda, 

Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Defendant agree to not question Ms. Zepeda about conversations she 

had with Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s mother while the attorney was present or other information protected 

by the attorney-client privilege. (See id; see also Doc. 80 at 2) However, the parties were not able to 

come to a formal agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a protective order regarding the scope of the 

deposition, and prohibiting questions “on communications or impressions made from conversations 

with the plaintiffs.” (Doc. 72 at 2)

Defendant filed its objection to the motion on June 3, 2016. (Doc. 80) In addition, in the 

opposition, the Defendant notified the Court of an additional dispute related to the deposition of 

Plaintiff. (See id. at 3) Because raising the issue is not appropriate in the opposition, the Court 

declines to consider the dispute related to the deposition of Plaintiff A.V., and instead focuses solely 

on the issue addressed by both parties and raised by Plaintiff in his motion: the scope of Ms. Zepeda’s 

deposition.

Case 1:15-cv-00246-MCE-JLT Document 87 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 5
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

II. Legal Standard

The Court may issue a protective order to shield any party from undue burdens arising from 

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Specifically, Rule 26 provides:

The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or 

more of the following:

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;

(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;

(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking 

discovery;

(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or 

discovery to certain matters;

(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;

(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;

(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or 

commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; and

(H) requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information 

in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the court directs.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Ninth Circuit determined this Rule provides the Court with “extensive 

control” over the discovery process, and “authoriz[es] courts to make any order which justice requires” 

to protect the parties. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

III. Discussion and Analysis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff does not object to the deposition of Ms. Zepeda in its entirety, but

seeks to prevent Defendant from asking questions that would violate the attorney-client privilege. (See 

generally Doc. 72) Accordingly, “Plaintiff seeks an order denying or limiting defendants’ deposition of 

Gloria Zepeda and prohibiting the Defendant’s counsel from asking Gloria Zepeda about any 

communications, theories of the case, investigations, communications with the attorney and 

impressions of the case and observations made about the Plaintiffs.” (Id. at 4) 

The purpose of the attorney-client privilege 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.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). To achieve 

this purpose, “[c]lients must be able to consult their lawyers candidly, and the lawyers in turn must be 

able to provide candid legal advice.” United States v. Christensen, 801 F.3d 970, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015). 

The privilege therefore protects not only the lawyer’s provision of legal advice, “but also the giving of 

Case 1:15-cv-00246-MCE-JLT Document 87 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.” Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 390.

The attorney-client privilege may be extended to a third party in limited circumstances, such as 

where the attorney needs an interpreter to understand the client. See United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 

918, 922 (2nd Cir. 1961) Defendant does not dispute that the attorney-client privilege applies to the 

services provided by Ms. Zepeda as a Spanish-language interpreter between Plaintiff, his mother, and 

their attorney. (See Doc. 8 at 3) To the contrary, Defendant agrees to “not inquire about direct and

indirect communications or observations” made by Ms. Zepeda. (Id.) However, Defendant maintains 

it should not be required to produce a list regarding the “deposition topics or questions” in advance of 

the deposition. (Id. at 2-3)

Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require advance disclosure of topics or 

questions to be posed during the course of the deposition. It is sufficient that Defendant is precluded 

from invading the attorney-client privilege. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

As the parties agree, communications between plaintiffs and their counsel, which were 

translated by Ms. Zepeda, as well as her observations during those meetings, are protected by the 

attorney-client privilege.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff has established good cause for a protective order that 

prevents Defendant from posing questions to Ms. Zepeda regarding these communications and 

observations. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause to require Defendant from providing 

in advance a list of the topics to be discussed or questions that will be asked at the deposition. Based 

upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is 

GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendant SHALL NOT question Gloria Zepeda regarding any communications made 

between Plaintiff, Concepcion Varela and their counsel; or her observations and 

impressions during the meetings in which she acted as an interpreter; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for a list of all deposition topics and questions to be posed by 

 

1Thus, questions related to the substance of Ms. Zepeda’s personal knowledge which gave rise to her testimony at the 

underlying administrative, are permitted. Likewise, questions related to meetings where Ms. Zepeda acted as an interpreter 

but where she did not interpret for counsel, are permitted.

Case 1:15-cv-00246-MCE-JLT Document 87 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Defendant is DENIED; and

3. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding the dispute related to the 

deposition of Plaintiff. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, they SHALL 

file a written request for a telephonic conference with Magistrate Judge Thurston prior 

to filing a properly noticed motion regarding the discovery dispute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00246-MCE-JLT Document 87 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 5