Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 (Defendants’ Objection to Discovery Order Number Nineteen, hereafter, “Objection 19,”

Docket Item No. 478; Defendants Objection to Discovery Order Number Twenty, hereafter,

“Objection 20,” Docket Item No. 481.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Darla Padgett, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Brian Loventhal, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-03946 JW 

ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND

OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

OBJECTIONS TO RECOMMENDED

DISCOVERY ORDERS NINETEEN AND

TWENTY

Presently before the Court are Defendants’ objections to Recommended Discovery Orders

Nineteen and Twenty.1

A. Recommended Discovery Order Nineteen

On January 16, 2008, the Special Master issued Recommended Discovery Order Nineteen, in

which he allowed Plaintiffs to call Dr. Press, Ph.D., a psychologist, as an expert witness. (See

Docket Item No. 475.)

Defendants object to the admission of Dr. Press on the ground that Plaintiffs’ emotional

distress is entirely unrelated to the litigation, and therefore not compensable. (Objection 19 at 2.) 

Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs’ three year delay in designating an expert is inexcusable. 

(Id.) Finally, Defendants contend that permitting Dr. Press to testify will prejudice them in the form

of additional litigation costs. (Id.)

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 486 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Defendants have filed an administrative motion to file these documents under seal.

(Defendants Administrative Motion to File Under Seal “Exhibit A” of the Declaration of Matthew J.

Jensen in Support of Defendants’ Objection to Discovery Order Number Twenty, Docket Item No.

482.) The Court construes the motion as an attempt to lodge the documents with the Court for

evaluation of Defendants’ objection. The Court has considered the documents in ruling on

Defendants’ objection. Thus, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as moot. 

2

First, Plaintiffs remaining claims are pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and emotional distress is

recoverable in a § 1983 action if Plaintiffs can prove that such injury was actually caused. See

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 264 (1978). Second, in light of the fact that the Court has vacated

the trial pending Defendant Loventhal’s appeal, the Court finds that Defendants have not been and

will not be prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ delay in designating Dr. Press as an expert witness. The Court

finds that the Special Master has devised a balanced discovery plan by allowing Defendants to

conduct additional depositions. 

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection to Recommended Discovery

Order Nineteen. The Court adopts the Special Master’s Discovery Order Nineteen.

B. Recommended Discovery Order Twenty

The parties are currently working with the Special Master to resolve disputes regarding

disclosure of certain documents found on Defendants’ hard drives. The Court previously ordered

that only privileged documents may be withheld from Plaintiffs. (See Docket Item No. 453.) On

January 16, 2008, the Special Master issued Recommended Discovery Order Twenty, in which he

listed the documents he found to be privileged. (See Docket Item No. 476.) 

Defendants object to the Special Master’s finding that ten documents are not protected by the

attorney-client privilege or the deliberative processes privilege.2 (Objection 20 at 2.)

1. Standards

The scope of an evidentiary privilege in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action is a question of

federal law. Breed v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 542 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir.

1976). The party asserting a privilege bears the burden of establishing it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 486 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 (Declaration of Matthew Jensen in Support of Defendants’ Objection to Discovery Order

Number Twenty, Ex. A., hereafter, “Jensen Decl.,” filed under seal.)

3

Under the attorney-client privilege, confidential communications made by a client to an

attorney to obtain legal services are protected from disclosure. Clarke v. American Commerce Nat.

Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992). Since the attorney-client privilege has the effect of

withholding relevant information from the fact-finder, it is applied only when necessary to achieve

its limited purpose of encouraging full and frank disclosure by the client to his or her attorney. (Id.)

In civil litigation, federal courts recognize a deliberative process privilege for

“pre-decisional, non-factual, non-public communications” occurring “among county officials and

their staff.” Newport Pacific Inc. v. County of San Diego, 200 F.R.D. 628, 638 (S.D. Cal. 2001);

U.S. v. Irvin, 127 F.R.D. 169, 172 (C.D. Cal. 1989); see also In re Franklin National Bank Securities

Litigation, 478 F. Supp. 577, 580-81 (E.D.N.Y. 1979); but see United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S.

360 (1980) (holding that state legislator’s private, deliberative communications were admissible in a

federal criminal prosecution). The privilege does not apply to “after-the-fact recollections and/or

justifications.” Newport Pacific, Inc., 200 F.R.D. at 637. Application of the privilege involves a

two step process. Id. First, the discovery opponent must show that the privilege applies to the

information at issue. Id. Second, the court must balance the need for disclosure against the need for

governmental secrecy. Id.

2. Discussion

In Discovery Order Number Twenty, the Special Master found that documents labeled JB

Log Nos. 5261 and 6634-6642 were not privileged.

a. Document 5261

Defendants contend that Document 5261 is protected by the attorney client privilege. 

Document 5261 is an email from Kirsten Powell to Defendant Brian Loventhal.3

 Ms. Powell is

Monte Sereno’s outside counsel. The email provides advice to Defendant Loventhal regarding

discussions with the City Council. The Court finds that this communication is protected by the

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 486 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ objection with regard to

this document.

b. Documents 6634 - 6642

Defendants contend that Documents 6634-6642 are protected by the attorney-client privilege

and the deliberative process privilege. Document 6634-6642 are essentially identical documents

containing a series of emails between former council member Mark Brodsky, council member and

former mayor David Baxter, and Defendant Brian Loventhal. The emails discuss agenda items for

an upcoming city council meeting. Defendants contend that these discussions represent Defendant

Loventhal’s repetition of advice obtained from the city attorney. Defendants further contend that the

communications are deliberative discussions.

The Court finds that these emails are not covered by either privilege principals. First, the

emails are not communications between an attorney and Defendant Loventhal. Second, the emails

do not include any references to the city’s attorney or any advice allegedly received from an

attorney. Third, the emails are discussions between a city executive and city legislators. Defendants

have not provided any authority for the proposition that the deliberative process privilege applies to

discussions between the various branches of government. Finally, the discussions are not predecisional in that they do not to include items on the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. 

Rather, in the emails, Defendant Loventhal merely explains his decision regarding the agenda. 

Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have not satisfied their burden of showing that the documents

are privileged. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection with regard to these

documents.

C. Conclusion

The Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection to Recommended Discovery Order

Nineteen. The Court adopts the Special Master’s Discovery Order Nineteen.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ objection to Recommended Discovery Order Twenty

with regard to Document 5261 and OVERRULES Defendants’ objection with regard to Documents

6634-6642. 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 486 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants shall produce these documents in accordance with the Special Master’s Order.

Dated: February 13, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 486 Filed 02/13/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Darla Kaye Padgett Actiontkr@aol.com

Joseph C. Howard jhoward@hrmrlaw.com

Thomas H R Denver tdenver@mediationmasters.com

Todd Holton Master tmaster@hrmrlaw.com

Dated: February 13, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 486 Filed 02/13/08 Page 6 of 6