Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN MOE HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-04-03808 SI (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON

PRIVILEGE LOG

On April 3, 2006, Judge Illston ordered Defendants to produce a privilege log: “To comply

with their discovery obligations, defendants must either produce a privilege log or suffer a waiver.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS defendants to produce their privilege log no later than April 7,

2006; if they do not do so, the privileges they assert will be waived.” Apr. 3, 2006 Order at 3:22-24

(emphasis in original). After Defendants produced a privilege log in response to this Order, Judge

Illston stated in a further Order that: ““While the privilege log lacks any sort of description of the

subject of many of the documents, the Court believes that the privilege log contains sufficient

information to constitute a good faith effort at compliance with this Court’s order.” However, Judge

Illston also found that the log “contained suspiciously few documents,” and referred the matter to

this Court to make sure the log was complete. May 22, 2006 Order at 2:14-16, 2:19, 2:22-23. 

Pursuant to this Court’s June 15, 2006 Order, Defendants filed a revised privilege log on

June 19, 2006 containing twenty-nine entries for withheld documents and thirty-nine entries for

redacted documents. On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking production of most of the

privilege log documents on the grounds that they are either not privileged or the privilege has been

waived. After Plaintiff filed this motion, Defendants produced items 15, 16 and 26 from the log. 

With respect to the documents that Plaintiff does not seek to compel, Plaintiff seeks an in camera

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 510 Filed 09/11/06 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

review to determine if the documents are properly on the privilege log. Defendants opposed this

motion and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

On August 9, 2006, the day after Plaintiff’s reply was filed, Defendants provided an

addendum to the privilege log including documents that had been recently uncovered as Defendants

were searching computer server paths pursuant to this Court’s Order to do so. The addendum

contains thirty-five previously undisclosed documents, many of which are drafts of documents

already listed on the June 19, 2006 privilege log. The Court permitted further briefing regarding the

documents on the addendum. Because this matter was appropriate for decision without oral

argument, the Court vacated the August 22, 2006 hearing. 

Privilege Log Entry 10: Defendants asserts the attorney-client privilege for this document,

but none of the authors or recipients on this e-mail chain appear to be attorneys. Defendants state

that they communicated to Plaintiff that the request for information in the e-mail came from outside

counsel, so the document is privileged. No later than September 15, 2006, Defendants shall amend

the privilege log to reflect a complete description of this e-mail chain and provide the document to

the Court for in camera review. 

Privilege Log Entry 11: Defendants assert third party privacy rights for this document,

which is described as a handwritten note with names and phone numbers of students. This

document has apparently been produced, but in a redacted form. Records from student files are

entitled to heightened protection under federal law. See Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-011 v.

Flavo, 534 U.S. 426, 428-29 (2002); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. However, Defendants have previously

produced to Plaintiff documents containing identifying student information under a protective order,

which are subject to redaction if they are filed with the Court. This document should be treated in

the same manner and, if filed with the Court, shall be redacted to conceal the names, personal

identifying information, financial information and/or medical information of students. 

Privilege Log Entry 12: Defendants assert the attorney-client privilege for this document,

entitled “Confidential - Intercollegiate Athletics: Draft Summary of Fact Finding Investigation to

Date.” Defendants have waived any privilege that arguably may have attached to this document for

two reasons. First, a University investigator answered questions about this draft document during

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 510 Filed 09/11/06 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

1 Defendants also argued that “Plaintiff cannot prove that any decision-makers made

derogatory comments about women” and that “no documents exist that show such comments were

made,” citing Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. See Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 10:4-7 (docket number

113). While it is true that Plaintiff did not have the evidence, Defendants knew it existed. 

3

her February 24, 2006 deposition and defense counsel did not object. See Sinclair Decl. Ex. N;

McCormick on Evid. § 93 (6th ed.). Second, this document was publicly filed on May 3, 2006 and

remains available on the Alameda County Superior Court website in connection with another case

against these Defendants. Defendants claim that the document was inadvertently produced, but

Defendants’ request to seal that document has been denied twice by the Superior Court. Despite the

Superior Court’s rulings, Defendants now ask this Court to find that the document was inadvertently

produced and to order its return to Defendants. Even if Defendants did not intend to waive the

privilege (see Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research & Management, 647 F.2d 18, 24 (9th Cir.

1981) (“the subjective intent of the party asserting the privilege is only one factor to be considered

in determining whether waiver should be implied.”)), other circumstances warrant a finding of

waiver. Notably, Defendants did not seek to seal the document in the Superior Court or to include it

on a privilege log in this case until almost six weeks after learning of its production. In addition, the

listing of this document on the original privilege log was misleading, describing it as “Minutes and

agenda,” which only relates to a cover page while the document itself is clearly labeled as a draft

summary of an investigation. 

Moreover, there is evidence that Defendants made representations to Judge Illston that were

not correct regarding statements in the draft summary, especially the statement that “women need to

be beaten.” First, Defendant stated in an April 2006 motion in limine that it was “unaware when,

where, or by whom this statement was allegedly made.” Apr. 18, 2006 Motion in Limine Number

16 at 1:24-25. Second, Defendants stated in their April 10, 2006 Reply to their Motion for Summary

Judgment that “there is no support for the inflammatory comment about women being beaten.” Apr.

10, 2006 Reply at 9:5. Yet the December 2002 draft summary attributes the statement that “women

should be beaten early” to “AD,” who Plaintiffs state in their brief is the Athletic Director

(Gladstone) and Defendants do not deny that attribution.1

 Defendants now seek to downplay these

statements as mere argument, not an incorrect statement of fact, as if it were acceptable to mislead a

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 510 Filed 09/11/06 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

court in argument. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privilege log entry number 12 is

granted. 

Privilege Log Entries 13 and 14: According to Defendants, these are separate reports of the

Sawyers investigation that were provided to attorney Smith so he could provide legal advice to

Defendants. To the extent that they are subsequent versions of the December 2002 draft summary,

privilege has been waived as to these documents because they are within the subject matter of the

draft summary. Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research and Management, Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 24

(9th Cir. 1981) (recognizing that voluntary disclosure of the content of an attorney-client

communication waives the attorney-client privilege as to all other communications on the same

subject matter). Moreover, with respect to entry 14, Defendants produced notes of a meeting on

February 4, 2003, the same date as entry 14, showing that the subject of the Sawyers investigation

and the report were extensively discussed. See Wagner Decl. Ex. C at 2155-56. 

Further, by affirmatively pleading as a defense that any actions taken by Defendants were

taken after investigation, Defendants have waived privilege as to all documents relating to that

investigation. See Walker v. County of Contra Costa, 227 F.R.D. 529 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (“Where a

party puts the adequacy of its pre-litigation investigation at issue by asserting the investigation as a

defense, the party must turn over documents related to that investigation, even if they would

ordinarily be privileged.”). Defendants argue that the affirmative defense based on investigation

was for “defendant’s position that the elimination of Athletic Department positions was based upon

an investigation of the need for those positions, in light of the budget crisis,” not for the Sawyers

investigation, and that the defense was asserted long before Plaintiff alleged retaliation based on

comments made by her to Sawyers investigators. On its face, however, this defense is not limited to

the elimination of positions, and it was asserted in answer to the second amended complaint, which

alleged gender discrimination. Also, if Defendants believed the defense did not apply once Plaintiff

amended her complaint, Defendants should have amended the answer. In fact, the defense

specifically refers to “any actions alleged by plaintiff to have been made or done by defendants.” 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privilege log entries 13 and 14 is

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 510 Filed 09/11/06 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

granted in part. Defendants shall produce those documents except that they may redact actual legal

advice. 

Privilege Log Entries 17-25, 27-29: Plaintiff argues that these documents, which appear to

be various letters and e-mails among University personnel and counsel regarding Plaintiff’s claim,

should be produced because any privilege has been waived because they were not listed on the

original log. Defendants argue that these documents, which are all dated in 2004, were inadvertently

left off the original log, but have not provided a viable explanation for their inadvertence. 

Accordingly, even applying the holistic approach to waiver of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe

Railroad Co. v. United States District Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2005), the

circumstances of this case warrant finding waiver of the attorney-client privilege. However, to the

extent that there are documents reflecting attorney-client communications made after this litigation

was filed, those documents may be withheld without being listed on the privilege log. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of entries 17-25 and 27-29 is granted in part. Defendants

shall produce entry 17, which is dated before the start of this litigation. Entries 18-25, 27 and 29

need not be produced as they are post-litigation documents. Entry 28 is an e-mail chain containing

messages from before and after the commencement of litigation; Defendants shall produce this

document for in camera review no later than September 15, 2006. 

Documents redacted on privacy grounds: Plaintiff argues that redacted documents 1-5

and 33-37, which have been redacted on privacy grounds, should be produced in non-redacted form. 

Most of the documents contain student addresses and phone numbers that have been redacted based

on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. The student

information should not be redacted from the documents but, as described above, if the documents

are filed in court, the filing party should redact the identifying information. 

Defendants redacted document 37 based on the right to privacy of a third party

whistleblower complaint involving a man unrelated to the athletics department. Plaintiff is entitled

to his name, although the name and other identifying information should be redacted in any court

filings. 

Production in camera of privilege log entries 1-9: Plaintiff asks the Court to review the

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 510 Filed 09/11/06 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

6

remaining log documents (and any others that are not ordered produced) in camera to confirm that

they are actually privileged because Defendants’ prior logs have been misleading in their document

description. Although these documents appear to be privileged based on the log’s descriptions, the

Court is mindful that Defendants have provided inadequate log descriptions in the past (compare

April 7, 2006 Log Entry number 12 with June 19, 2006 Log Entry number 12) and, after this motion

to compel was filed, produced three documents that they previously listed on the June log as

privileged. Therefore, the Court will review log entries numbers 1-9 in camera. Defendants shall

submit these documents no later than September 15, 2006. 

Addendum to privilege log: On August 9, 2006, Defendants provided an addendum to the

privilege log including thirty-five additional documents that it found on an archive CD which it

discovered when it began to preserve the server paths as required by this Court’s Order. The thirtyfive items on the Addendum relate to the Sawyers investigation by University personnel in 2002-

2003. Defendants argue that Addendum Entries 2-20 and 31-33 are drafts of privilege log numbers

13 and 14, and that Addendum Entries 21-28 and 34-35 are draft versions of privilege log numbers

12. See Defs.’ Supp. Brief at 4:13-14. The other three addendum documents (entries 1, 29 and 30),

according to Defendants, are either part of the privilege log documents 12-14 or communications

between attorney and client regarding legal advice with respect to the privileged reports. These

documents are either dated before this litigation was filed or have no date. Because the Court has

found that the attorney-client privilege has been waived with respect to Privilege Log Entries 12-14,

the Addendum documents are within the same subject matter (in fact, some appear to be copies or

drafts of the draft summary itself) and so are included in the waiver. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 510 Filed 09/11/06 Page 6 of 6