Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591-28/pdf.json

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AREZOU MANSOURIAN, LAUREN

MANCUSO, NANCY NIEN-LI CHIANG,

and CHRISTINE WING-SI NG; and all 

those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-03-2591 FCD EFB

vs.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE ORDER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT 

DAVIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

 /

This case was before the undersigned on November 14, 2007, for hearing on defendants’

motion for a protective order. George Acero appeared as defense counsel and Whitney Huston

and Monique Olivier appeared as plaintiffs’ counsel. Having considered all submitted papers

and oral argument, and for the reasons stated at the hearing and as set forth below, defendants’

motion is denied. 

This action is proceeding on the complaint filed on December 18, 2003. Plaintiffs’

claims have been limited by the recent ruling of Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on defendants’

motion for judgment on the pleadings. The remaining claims involve plaintiffs’ claims under

Title IX for ineffective accommodation and emotional distress. Plaintiffs are former female

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 250 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 The order endorsed by Judge Damrell in this case was filed in the Burch case, and

appears in the docket as document no. 32. 

2

students at the University of California, Davis, who participated in, or planned to participate in,

the University’s intercollegiate wrestling program. However, actions by the University and its

staff later limited wrestling opportunities for women, which gave rise to the present action. 

After initiating this action, the parties determined that it was closely related to another

action then pending against the University, i.e., Burch v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Davis,

Case No. 2:04-cv-0038 WBS GGH (“Burch”). Because counsel believed the factual and legal

issues in both cases were very similar, they agreed to conduct parallel discovery in both actions. 

Although the cases were never formally designated as related under the Local Rules for purposes

of assignment to the same judge, the court-endorsed stipulations by the parties effectively

merged discovery in the two cases. More specifically, the parties agreed that they could use

documents produced in one case to prosecute or defend either case. This stipulation was

approved and entered as an order both by Judge Damrell in this case on October 12, 2004, and

by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows in the Burch case on June 15, 2004.1

That stipulated, court-endorsed order provides that the parties

believe that the factual and legal issues in Mansourian v. Regents of the

University of California, et al., (E.D. Cal. Case No. Civ. S-03-2591 FCD/PAN)

and Burch v. Regents of the University of California, et al., (E.D. Cal. Case No.

Civ. S-04-038 WBS/GGH) overlap. The parties also believe that the discovery in

the two cases will overlap. Accordingly, . . . the parties, through their counsel

hereby stipulate and agree that . . . the parties may use documents produced in

one case to prosecute or defend either case, subject to the Federal Rules of

Evidence.

See Stipulation and Order, Doc. no. 32 in Burch, (as endorsed by Judge Damrell) (emphasis

added). 

During the Burch case, defendants were ordered by Judge William B. Shubb to produce

several documents that they argued were privileged. Judge Shubb then granted in part

defendants’ motion to reconsider that order, and agreed to conduct an in camera review of the

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 250 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 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

2

 In Burlington Northern, the Ninth Circuit set forth guidelines for determining waiver

where the party asserting a privilege fails to timely produce a privilege log pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Burlington Northern, 408 F.3d at 1149. In that case, the Court found waiver

where the withholding party was a sophisticated corporation that did not provide a privilege log

until five months after its initial responses to discovery requests were due. Id., at 1149-50. 

3

purportedly privileged documents. Upon conducting that review and after considering the

briefing by both parties, Judge Shubb ultimately determined that the defendants had waived any

privileges as to those documents, and again ordered their production. In making this

determination, he relied on the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Rwy.

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 939 (2005),2

and concluded that defendants had waived all privileges given their long, six-month delay in

producing a privilege log. Defendants’ petition to the Ninth Circuit for relief from the order was

denied. The defendants subsequently produced the documents, but did so pursuant to a

stipulated protective order governing the terms of production and use of the documents. That

order specifically provided that the documents “shall be used only for the purpose of the

prosecution, defense, or settlement of this (“Burch”) action and the related action for which

discovery is merged, Mansourian v. Regents, 03-2591 FCD PAN.” The language could hardly

be clearer in its contemplation that the documents shall be used in this action.

This brings us to the present dispute, where defendants now attempt to re-assert the same 

privileges as to those very documents ultimately produced in Burch, and to withhold them from

use in this action. In essence, defendants ask this court to reverse or disregard Judge Shubb’s

order regarding waiver of the asserted privileges, and to vacate the subsequent protective order

reaffirming the parties’ agreement that discovery documents in the other case may be used in this

case. Defendants cite to a number of cases to support their argument that they may reclaim the

privilege based on the involuntary nature of the production. In particular, defendants rely on

Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM Corp., 573 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1978). The cases they rely on

address the accidental or inadvertent disclosure or production of privileged documents. They

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 250 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 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

4

have no application here.

In Transamerica Computer the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order requiring

accelerated production of over 17 million documents, which resulted in the advertent disclosure

of privileged documents. The Court wrote that “under the specific circumstances of the

accelerated discovery proceedings. . . , [the producing party’s] inadvertent document . . . of some

privileged documents does not constitute a waiver . . . , for that production was made without

adequate opportunity to claim the privilege.” Id., at 651. The court’s conclusion regarding

waiver was contingent upon the producing party’s lack of an adequate opportunity to claim it. 

Id., at 652. 

Here, the documents were not accidentally released. They were produced pursuant to a

court order after the defendants litigated and lost a disputed discovery motion seeking the

production of the documents. Moreover, unlike the party in Transamerica Computer, defendants

here, in the context of the Burch case proceedings, had numerous opportunities to assert

privilege as to the contested documents. Specifically, defendants had previously identified the

purportedly privileged documents but withheld them for months without producing a privilege

log. They were ordered to produce them, but obtained reconsideration of that order. When,

upon further review, production was again ordered defendants had the opportunity to appeal to

the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, the district judge in Burch allowed defendants to produce the

documents pursuant to a protective order defendants themselves helped fashion, and which

explicitly contemplated use of the documents in this case.

Defendants’ attempt to liken these circumstances to the inadvertent disclosure that

occurred in Transamerica is unavailing. Defendants shall be bound by the terms of the

previously entered protective orders in this action and in the Burch. 

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 250 Filed 11/19/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a protective order deeming the documents unusable

in this litigation is denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 19, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 250 Filed 11/19/07 Page 5 of 5