Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00921/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00921-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cameron Lebbon, a married man; Peoria 

Police Officer’s Association Charities, a 

non-profit charitable organization; Peoria 

Police Officer’s Association, a non-profit 

corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

City of Peoria, a municipality, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00921-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 25.) At 

issue is a document referred to by the parties as the 2010 Investigation. On October 19, 

2012, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Production of Documents requesting Defendants to 

produce the 2010 Investigation. (Id. at 2.) Defendants refused, asserting that the 2010 

Investigation is protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. (Id.) 

 “A party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the 

existence of an attorney-client relationship and the privileged nature of the 

communication.” United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). Similarly, a party asserting the work product 

privilege bears the burden of proving that the material withheld meets the standards 

established for material to be classified as work product. Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214 

F.R.D. 587, 591 (S.D. Cal. 2003). 

Case 2:12-cv-00921-GMS Document 39 Filed 01/31/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Here, Defendants have made no effort to meet their burden, instead merely 

asserting that Plaintiffs conceded in a telephonic conference that the 2010 Investigation 

was privileged. (Doc. 28 at 2.) Defendants have failed to show that the 2010 Investigation 

is protected by either the attorney-client or the work product privilege. 

 Even if Plaintiffs had conceded that the 2010 Investigation was privileged (a fact 

that they strongly dispute), Defendants waived that privilege when they disclosed the 

contents of the 2010 Investigation to Plaintiff Cameron Lebbon in a Memo dated May 31, 

2011. “Disclosing a privileged communication . . . results in waiver as to all other 

communications on the same subject.” Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th 

Cir. 2010). In the 2011 Memo to Lebbon, Defendants set forth a lengthy series of 

conclusions that they reached as a result of the 2010 Investigation. (Doc. 25-1.) Thus, 

Defendants disclosed the contents of the 2010 Investigation to Lebbon. 

 Defendants contend that the work product privilege can only be waived “when 

voluntarily disclosed such that it may become readily accessible to an adversary.” (Doc. 

25 at 2–3) (citing Samuels v. Mitchell, 155 F.R.D. 195, 200 (N.D. Cal. 1994)). In fact, the 

case cited by Defendants stands for the narrower proposition that waiver by disclosure 

occurs “if the disclosure substantially increases the opportunity for potential adversaries 

to obtain the information.” Samuels, 155 F.R.D. at 200. Furthermore, the same court has 

held that the work product privilege for written materials is waived as to any factual 

information orally disclosed to the adverse party. S.E.C. v. Roberts, 254 F.R.D. 371, 377 

(N.D. Cal. 2008). 

 Here, Defendants disclosed the contents of the 2010 Investigation by citing to 

factual findings from the Investigation in their 2011 Memo to Lebbon. (Doc. 25-1 at 2–

4.) By setting out those findings in the Memo, Defendants “substantially increased the 

opportunity” for Lebbon to obtain that information. Defendants have thus waived any 

work product privilege they might have had regarding such information in the 2010 

Investigation. See Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 273 F.R.D. 545, 555 (D. 

Ariz. 2011). 

Case 2:12-cv-00921-GMS Document 39 Filed 01/31/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 Defendants have failed to establish that the 2010 Investigation is protected by 

either the attorney-client or work product privileges. Even if they had made such a 

showing, they waived any privilege they may have had by disclosing the contents of the 

2010 Investigation in their 2011 Memo to Plaintiff Lebbon. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 25) is 

GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to produce the 2010 Investigation. 

 Dated this 31st day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00921-GMS Document 39 Filed 01/31/13 Page 3 of 3