Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02077/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Paul Bobrowski, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Red Door Group, Inc., et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-02077-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion for protective order (doc. 94), plaintiff's

motion for extension of time to file response (doc. 101), plaintiff's response (doc. 100),

defendants' response to the motion for extension (doc. 103), and defendants' reply in support

of the motion for protective order (doc. 104). We also have before us defendants' motion to

seal exhibits I, J, and K to the motion for protective order (doc. 102).

Although defendants state that they "regret burdening the Court with unnecessary

motion practice" that is exactly what the parties are doing. Response to the Motion for

Extension at 2. We already admonished the parties before regarding filing a "series of

lengthy documents in which the parties are at each others' throats" (doc. 68). For some

reason this "waste of the clients' and the court's precious time" continues. Id.

Defendants seek a protective order for three legal billing statements "inadvertently"

turned over to plaintiff during discovery because they claim that the documents are protected

by the attorney client privilege. Plaintiff argues that defendants waived the privilege both

Case 2:09-cv-02077-FJM Document 105 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

when they initially turned over the documents during discovery and when they attached them

as public exhibits to the motion for protective order. Even if defendants did not waive the

privilege, plaintiff argues that the documents are not privileged but discoverable.

We do not reach the issue of whether the billing statements are privileged because we

find that defendants repeatedly have waived any privilege. To determine whether the

privilege should be deemed waived, we consider the circumstances surrounding the

disclosure. United States v. de la Jara, 973 F.2d 746, 749 (9th Cir. 1992). Voluntary

disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications constitutes waiver of the privilege.

United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011).

 Not only did defendants turn over the privileged documents during discovery, but they

then re-filed them as a matter of public record by attaching them as exhibits I, J, and K to the

motion for protective order. See doc. 94. Defendants argue that this was inadvertent and that

they immediately took steps to rectify the disclosure by filing a motion to seal. However,

defendants also include specific quotes from the billing statements in the motion for a

protective order. Defendants have not sought to seal the entire motion. The inclusion of

specific quotes from the very documents that are allegedly privileged, strongly undercuts

defendants' position and supports a finding of waiver. By repeatedly disclosing, three times,

the very information claimed to be privileged, defendants have not taken reasonable steps to

prevent the disclosure of privileged information. See Jara, 973 F.2d at 750 (stating that the

privilege is deemed to be waived if the privilege holder fails to pursue all reasonable means

of preserving the confidentiality of the privileged matter). 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED denying defendants' motion for a protective order

(doc. 94) and motion to seal (doc. 102). It is FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING

plaintiff's motion for extension of time (doc. 101).

DATED this 1st day of July, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02077-FJM Document 105 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2