Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

 There are several named plaintiffs; however, for convenience, they are here referred

to in the singular as "Plaintiff" or "Ho."

*E-filed 1/24/08*

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 DAVID HO, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,

Defendant. /

Case No. C05-04867 JF (HRL) 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRIVILEGE LOG

Re: Docket No. 106

In this putative class action, named plaintiff David Ho1 claims that his employer, Ernst

& Young ("E & Y"), improperly treated him and other employees as "professionals" exempt

from California's overtime laws. Defendant moves to compel a privilege log.

A) Privilege Log

Counsel for Plaintiff maintains a website, www.eylawsuit.com, designed, primarily, to

gather witness statements, and, secondarily, to prospect for additional named plaintiffs. Present

or former E & Y employees who visit the site are asked to fill out a questionnaire about job

duties with time estimates that they then can submit electronically to Plaintiff's counsel. Once

Ho's attorney receives the response, he may turn it into a witness statement, which can then be

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 116 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 5
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

returned to the class member for a signature. (Plaintiff represents unequivocally that he

currently has no signed witness statements.) Through discovery, E & Y sought production of

the website communications. See Request No.'s 31-33, Defendant's Second Request for

Production of Documents. Plaintiff refused to produce the information on the basis of attorneyclient privilege. E & Y then requested a privilege log. Again, Ho refused. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) requires a party to expressly make a claim

of privilege when withholding documents. That party must "describe the nature of the

documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed --and do so in a

manner that ... will enable other parties to assess the claim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Thus,

although there is not an explicit requirement for a "privilege log," that is typically how parties

satisfy Rule 26. The privilege log should contain: (1) a description of the responsive material

withheld; (2) the identity and position of the material’s author; (3) the date it was written; (4)

the identity and position of all recipients of the material; (5) the material’s present location; and

(6) the privilege invoked and the grounds for asserting it. United States v. Union Pacific R. Co.,

2007 WL 1500551 ,*3, Docket No. 06-1740 FCD (E.D. Cal. 2007) (citing United States v.

Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996)). However, this

guideline is constrained by Rule 26's mandate that the log should not be written so as to reveal

information itself privileged or protected. Thus, there are times when a privilege log would

suffice even if lacking some of the Union Pacific requirements. 

Plaintiff's opposition papers argued that he was not required to produce any of these

elements. However, Ho conceded at oral argument that he actually only opposed disclosing the

identity of the responding putative class members (i.e., the second requirement). Accordingly,

Defendant's motion to compel production of a privilege log containing all but the second of the

Union Pacific requirements is summarily GRANTED. 

With respect to the disclosure of the class member's names, further discussion is

warranted. The typical rule is that identities are not privileged. See Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d

1046, 1048-1050 (9th Cir. 1981). However, there are a few exceptions to this general rule, two

of which Plaintiff says apply here.

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 116 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 5
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

First, where the client’s identity has “independent significance,” Id. at 1049, disclosure

will not be compelled where it would necessarily expose privileged communications. See e.g.,

Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 633-35 (9th Cir. 1960) (identity protected from disclosure to

Internal Revenue Service because it would expose the substance of the confidential

communication, i.e., the client's confession to the attorney of delinquent tax payments). 

Applying that logic, Ho claims that disclosing the identity of the responding class members

reveals the underlying privileged communication. But that is not the case. Here, the substance

of the communication concerns the job duties of the class member, time spent on tasks, and

other information pertaining to working conditions. The identity of the class member does not

have independent significance and does not fall within this exception. 

Second, disclosure of identities is not required in certain, narrow circumstances where

there is a potential for retaliation against employee witnesses. However, the vast majority of

these cases rely on an "informer's privilege" which can only be asserted by a governmental body

bringing an enforcement action. See e.g., Brock v. J.R. Sousa & Sons, Inc., 113 F.R.D. 545, 546

(D. Mass. 1986); Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc., 312 F.2d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1963). These

cases, cited by Ho, are Fair Labor Standards Act enforcement actions brought by the US

Secretary of Labor against employers -- not private actions against employers. 

Ho was able to cite to only one case in which the "informer's privilege" was permitted in

a private action. That case involved foreign garment workers facing threat of termination,

deportation, arrest and imprisonment by the People's Republic of China if their identities were

revealed. Does v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit

explained that the retaliation exception was being applied only because the plaintiffs were faced

with "an objectively reasonable fear of extraordinarily severe retaliation." Id. at 1063. In this

action against E & Y, the court is presented with only Plaintiff's speculative fear of retaliation. 

This is an insufficient showing under Advanced Textile. 

Based on the foregoing, E & Y's motion to compel a privilege log which includes the

identities of the individuals authoring the communication is GRANTED. 

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 116 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 5
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 In any event, the reliance on Sepulveda is questionable, since it deals with signed

witness declarations and this case involves unsigned questionnaire responses. 

4

B) Remaining Issues

E & Y moved alternatively for a determination that Ho's refusal to produce the log

waived any privileges associated with the information withheld. Waiver would be an unduly

harsh remedy which is not warranted under these circumstances. On this point, the motion is

DENIED. 

Finally, Defendant raises a related discovery issue for the first time in its reply brief. 

Citing Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., E & Y alleges that Ho has not met his discovery

obligations under FRCP 26(a) and (e)(1). 237 F.R.D. 229 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The request was

not properly presented and will not be decided at this time.2

CONCLUSION

Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall produce a privilege log

containing: (1) a description of the responsive material withheld; (2) the identity and position of

the material’s author; (3) the date it was submitted; (4) the identity and position of all recipients

of the material; (5) the material’s present location; and (6) the privilege invoked and the

grounds for asserting it. With respect to the second and third requirements (and any other entry

requiring a unique response to the remaining elements), Plaintiff shall provide an appropriate

separate entry log. Otherwise, he may provide a generalized response applicable to all other

elements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/24/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 116 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 5
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Anastasia Melinda Boles aboles@akingump.com, westdocketing@akingump.com 

Catherine A. Conway cconway@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com,

westdocketing@akingump.com 

Stephanie S Der sder@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com,

westdocketing@akingump.com 

Max Folkenflik max@fmlaw.net 

Leon Greenberg wagelaw@aol.com, leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com,

wagelaw@hotmail.com 

H. Tim Hoffman hth@hoffmanandlazear.com 

Gregory William Knopp gknopp@akingump.com, dkucko@akingump.com,

westdocketing@akingump.com 

Arthur William Lazear awl@hoffmanandlazear.com 

Ross L. Libenson , Esq rlibenson@ansbb.com 

Morgan Matthew Mack mmm@hoffmanandlazear.com 

Mark R. Thierman laborlawyer@pacbell.net, kellyann@callatg.com, thier3@callatg.com,

thier4@callatg.com, thier6@callatg.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up for efiling.

Dated: 1/24/08 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 116 Filed 01/24/08 Page 5 of 5