Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware

corporation and WAL-MART REAL

ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,a Delaware

statutory trust

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF TURLOCK, et. al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV F 04-5278 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART WALMART’S MOTION TO COMPEL JOHN

HANDLEY’S COMPLIANCE WITH

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

On August 16, 2005, Plaintiff WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation and

WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust (“Wal-Mart”)

filed the instant motion to compel non-party John Handley’s compliance with subpoena duces

tecum. The Court heard the motion on September 23, 2005. John P. Kinsey and Timothy Jones

appeared on behalf of Wal Mart. Ronald Hofsdal appeared for non-party John Handley. 

BACKGROUND

Wal-Mart filed this action on February 11, 2004 seeking damages and declaratory relief

against defendant the City of Turlock (“the City”) claiming that the City enacted an amendment

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 148 Filed 09/23/05 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

27

28 2

to its zoning code (“the Ordianance”) that purposefully discriminates against out of state retailers,

such as Wal-Mart, in favor of in state retailers in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United

States Constitution. 

Wal-Mart contends that after receiving a document production from third party Save Mart

on May 17, 2005, counsel for Wal Mart learned that John Handley of the California Independent

Grocers Association (“CIGA”) played an extensive role in the supermarkets’ closed-door

meetings with the Turlock City Council on August 22, 2003. In light of this information, on June

23, 2005, Wal Mart issued a subpoena to Mr. Handley requesting certain categories of documents

which Wal Mart contends were specifically tailored to conform to the Court’s previous discovery

rulings in this litigation:

1. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between CIGA and

the City of Turlock regarding the Big Box Ordinance, at any time between January

2003 and the present.

2. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between John

Handley and the City of Turlock regarding the Big Box Ordinance, at any time

between January 2003 and the present.

3. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between Jim Pallios

and the City of Turlock regarding the Big Box Ordinance, at any time between

January 2003 and the present.

4. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between CIGA and

the City of Turlock regarding any proposed Wal Mart Store within the City of

Turlock, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

5. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between John

Handley and the City of Turlock regarding any proposed Wal Mart Store within

the City of Turlock, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

6. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between Jim Pallios

and the City of Turlock regarding any proposed Wal Mart Store within the City of

Turlock, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

7. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between CIGA and

Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding the Big Box

Ordinance, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

8. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between John

Handley and Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding

the Big Box Ordinance, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

9. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between Jim Pallios

and Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding the Big

Box Ordinance, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

10. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between CIGA and

Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding any proposed

Wal Mart Store within the City of Turlock, at any time between January 2003 and

the present.

11. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between John

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 148 Filed 09/23/05 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

27

28 3

Handley and Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding

any proposed Wal Mart Store within the City of Turlock, at any time between

January 2003 and the present.

12. All documents regarding or constituting any communications between Jim Pallios

and Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding any

proposed Wal Mart Store within the City of Turlock, at any time between January

2003 and the present.

13. All documents regarding any actual or intended communications between the City

of Turlock and Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding

the Big Box Ordinance, at any time between January 2003 and the present.

14. All documents regarding any actual or intended communications between the City

of Turlock and Savemart, Safeway, Railey’s Richland and/or the UFCW regarding

any proposed Wal Mart Store within the City of Turlock, at any time between

January 2003 and the present

Wal Mart contends that instead of complying with the subpoena, Mr. Handley served

boilerplate objections on July 7, 2005 and continues to refuse to produce any responsive

documents to Wal Mart. The majority of objections have been resolved, however Mr. Handley

continues to refuse to produce any documents on First Amendment associational privilege

grounds. Wal Mart argues that Mr. Handley has not provided a privilege log and therefore

pursuant to Federal Rule 45(d)(2), he has waived any privilege that may attach. Wal Mart also

argues that Mr. Handley cannot establish a prima facie case that the associational privilege

applies. There is no evidence that CIGA engages in expressive association and Wal Mart has not

sought the categories of information, such as membership lists that Courts have typically shielded

from production. Wal Mart also states that it has a compelling need for the documents at issue. 

Mr. Handley represents that he is registered with the State of California as a legislative

lobbyist and is employed by CIGA in that capacity. He is neither the custodian of records for

CIGA nor has he ever been. A subpoena has never been served on CIGA’s custodian of records. 

Mr. Handley asserts that evidence of CIGA’s involvement in government relations is readily

available on their website and the First Amendment protects his lobbying efforts.

DISCUSSION

A. Mr. Handley’s Failure to Provide a Privilege Log

Federal Rule of Civil procedure 45(d)(2) provides: 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 148 Filed 09/23/05 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

27

28 4

When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is

privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be

made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the

documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the

demanding party to contest the claim.

F.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2). As evidenced by this extensively briefed motion, Mr. Handley’s objections

to the subpoena duces tecum wherein he asserted his objection to the production of the requested

documents on First Amendment grounds was sufficient to enable Wal Mart to contest his claim

of privilege. A privilege log would not have assisted Wal Mart in contesting the claim in that

Mr. Handley’s objections were not document specific but rather were based on the nature of the

information sought in general. 

B. First Amendment

As this Court has recognized on two prior occasions dealing with virtually the same

Subpoena, the First Amendment creates a qualified associational privilege which can, under

some circumstances, protect against discovery of information or documents by the government. 

See I.D.K., Inc. V. Clark County, 836 F.2d 1185 (9 Cir. 1989); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. th

449, 462-3 (1958); see also Int’l Action Ctr. v. United States, 207 F.R.D. 1, 2-4 (D.D.C. 2002). 

The party from whom discovery is sought has the burden to establish the associational privilege

exists and must show that disclosure of the information would induce members to withdraw from

the organization, or dissuade others from joining the organization , because they fear that

exposure of association with the organization will lead to threats, harassment or reprisal. Id. 

This Court has also, on two prior occasions, rejected the argument a private corporation

asserting its opposition to a business competitor’s entry of a “superstore” into the market based

on perceived adverse business consequences arising from enhanced competition, is entitled to

protection under the First Amendment’s expressive association right. Accordingly, the Court has

ordered that documents (which are virtually the same of those requested of Mr. Handley)

requested in Wal-Mart’s subpoenas, as modified by the Court, to other third party business

competitors, are not protected by the First Amendment expressive association privilege. 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 148 Filed 09/23/05 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

27

28 5

Mr. Handley has not established that he is entitled to any greater protection than this

Court has previously afforded in its earlier rulings on this issue. The information sought here

relates to communications with a governing representative body relating to a proposed ordinance

and is not the type of “expression” protected by the First Amendment associational privilege. 

Mr. Handley concedes that documents reflecting communications he had with Turlock City

officials are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment and further that the identity of

other CEGA members who communicated with the City on the issue of the Big Box Ordinance

has already been disclosed to Wal Mart in documents produced by other entities, including

CEGA members. Under these circumstances and given the limits the Court has already placed

on the scope of the Subpoena, Mr. Handley’s claim of First Amendment protection is rejected. 

Like Save Mart and Safeway, Mr. Handley has failed to show how documents concerning

communications or intended communications with the City regarding Wal Mart or the Big Box

Ordinance are of the nature protected by the associational privilege. Moreover, this Court, as a

policy matter, rejects the notion that the First Amendment associational privilege protects the

right to lobby the government in secret. 

Accordingly, Wal Mart’s motion to compel John Handley’s compliance with subpoena

duces tecum is HEREBY GRANTED in part. Consistent with this Court’s prior orders, Mr.

Handley is ordered to produce all documents from January 1, 2003 through the present

concerning intended or actual communications with the City of Turlock regarding any proposed

Wal-Mart Supercenter within the City of Turlock and/or a “big box” ordinance concerning the

City of Turlock within 20 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 23, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 148 Filed 09/23/05 Page 5 of 5