Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Darla Padgett, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

City of Monte Sereno, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-03946 JW 

ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND

OVERRULING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO

DISCOVERY ORDER NUMBER

SEVENTEEN

I. INTRODUCTION

The parties are currently working with the Special Master in order for Defendants to disclose

to Plaintiffs certain documents found on Defendants’ hard drives. The Court previously ordered that

only privileged documents may be withheld from Plaintiffs. (See Docket Item No. 453.) On

December 5, 2007, the Special Master issued recommended Discovery Order Number 17 in which

he listed the documents he found to be privileged. (See Docket Item No . 457.)

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ objection to the Special Master’s finding that four

documents are not protected by the attorney work product privilege or the attorney-client privilege. 

(hereafter, “Objection,” Docket Item No. 463.)

II. STANDARDS

The Court applies federal law when determining whether documents are privileged. Fed. R.

Evidence 501. A party asserting a privilege bears the burden of establishing it. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(5). Under the attorney-client privilege, confidential communications made by a client to an

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 472 Filed 12/20/07 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

1

 The documents are not described directly in the Objection. Rather, they are described by

reference to the Declaration of Kirsten M. Powell in Support of Defendants’ Objection to Discovery

Order Number Seventeen. (hereafter, “Powell Decl.”) Defendants have concurrently filed an

administrative motion to file the Powell Declaration under seal. (See Docket Item No. 464.) 

Attached as exhibits to the Powell Declaration are the documents at issue. Defendants have provided

no reason for why the Powell Declaration itself, as opposed to the exhibits attached, should be filed

under seal. Thus the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion with respect to the declaration itself. The

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion with regard to the exhibits attached to the Powell Declaration. 

The Court considers the Powell Declaration in ruling on Defendants’ Objection.

2

attorney to obtain legal services are protected from disclosure. Clarke v. American Commerce Nat.

Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992). Since the attorney-client privilege has the effect of

withholding relevant information from the factfinder, it is applied only when necessary to achieve its

limited purpose of encouraging full and frank disclosure by the client to his or her attorney. (Id.)

With respect to attorney work product, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), states as

follow:

Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in

anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the

other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule

26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if: . . . .

(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case

and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other

means.

The Ninth Circuit has held that a document prepared for both litigation and non-litigation purposes

are entitled to the attorney-work product protection if, “taking into account the facts surrounding

their creation, their litigation purpose so permeates any non-litigation purpose that the two purposes

cannot be discretely separated from the factual nexus as a whole.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena

(Mark Torf/Torf Environmental Management), 357 F.3d 900, 910 (9th Cir. 2004). 

III. DISCUSSION

The documents at issue are designated JB Log # 73, # 249-251, #279-280, #329-330.1

(Objection at 2.) The Court examines each document in turn.

//

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 472 Filed 12/20/07 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 3

A. JB Log #73 - Transcript of City Council Meeting

JB Log # 73 is a transcript of Plaintiff Joseph Padgett and non-party Michael Bain and Cindy

Bain’s remarks made at a meeting of the Monte Sereno City Council held on March 20, 2007. 

Defendants contend that it is the City’s custom to record such meetings and make the recordings

available to the public. (Powell Decl. ¶ 4.) However, the City does not ordinarily prepare

transcripts from the recordings. (Id.) Defendants state that the transcript was prepared at

Defendants’ counsel’s request specifically for this litigation. (Id.)

Since the documents were prepared specifically for this litigation, the Court finds that the

transcript is attorney work product. Since Plaintiffs can prepare their own transcripts from the

publicly available recordings, the Court finds that the transcript does not meet the exception of Rule

26(b)(3)(ii). Accordingly, the Court finds that the transcript is not discoverable.

B. JB Log # 249, 250, and 251

JB Log # 249, 250, and 251 are identical copies of a draft press release prepared by

Defendants’ counsel concerning this litigation. (Powell Decl. ¶ 5.) The draft was never released to

the public. (Id.)

The press release is not communication from the client to the attorney and is therefore not

protected by the attorney client privilege. Defendants do not contend that the press release was

prepared in “anticipation of litigation or for trial.” In addition, Defendant has failed to identified any

litigation or trial related purposes for the draft press release. Accordingly, the Court finds the draft

press release is not entitled to attorney-work product protection.

C. JB Log # 279 and 280

JB Log # 279 and 280 are identical copies of a letter prepared on January 7, 2004 by then

City Clerk of Monte Sereno, Andrea M. Chelemengos. Defendants state that the letter was written

at the request of then City Attorney Robert Logan. (Powell Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendants state that at the

time the letter was prepared, the City was contemplating the filing of a restraining order against Mr.

Padgett. (Id.)

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 472 Filed 12/20/07 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

The letter is addressed “to whom it may concern,” rather than to Mr. Logan or any other City

Official. There is no indication of the why the letter was written, in what context, or at whose

request. Additionally, Defendants fail to show that the letter was not disclosed to third parties or

otherwise intended to be confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have not

satisfied their burden of showing that the letter was intended to be confidential communication

between Defendants and their attorneys. Accordingly, the letter is not protected by attorney-client

privilege.

Although Defendants declare that the letter was filed contemporaneous with anticipated

litigation, they do not state that the letter was prepared for such litigation. Thus, the letter is not

entitled to attorney work product protection.

D. JB Log # 329 and 330

JB Log # 329 and 330 are identical copies of a document that summarizes various talking

points regarding Monte Sereno. Defendants contend the document is a memorandum prepared by

Defendant’s counsel for the City Council which was never publicly released. (Powell Decl. ¶ 7.) 

The Court finds that the document is confidential communication between Defendants and their

attorneys and is thus, protected by the attorney-client privilege.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court Orders as follows:

1) The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to file under seal the Declaration of Kirsten

M. Powell to the extent it seeks to seal the declaration itself.

2) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file under seal the Declaration of Kirsten

M. Powell to the extent it seeks to seal the exhibits attached to the declaration.

3) The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objection to the Discovery Order Number

Seventeen with respect to JB Log # 73, 329, and 330.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 472 Filed 12/20/07 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

4) The Court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objection to the Discovery Order Number

Seventeen with respect to the JB Log # 249, 250, 251, 279, and 280.

Dated: December 20, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 472 Filed 12/20/07 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Darla Kaye Padgett Actiontkr@aol.com

Joseph C. Howard jhoward@hrmrlaw.com

Thomas H R Denver tdenver@mediationmasters.com

Todd Holton Master tmaster@hrmrlaw.com

Dated: December 20, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 472 Filed 12/20/07 Page 6 of 6