Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 The current and former City officials named as defendants are: Brian Loventhal ("Loventhal"), Erin Garner

("Garner"), A. Curtis Wright ("Wright"), Mark Brodsky ("Brodsky"), Barbara Nesbet ("Nesbet"), and David Baxter ("Baxter").

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 12/21/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH PADGETT AND DARLA

PADGETT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MONTE SERENO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:04-cv-3946 JW (RS)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants the City of Monte Sereno ("City") and other individual City officials1 move for a

protective order to compel plaintiffs Joseph Padgett and Darla Padgett ("Padgetts"), former residents of the

City, to return any and all copies of a handwritten note which the City contends is protected by the

attorney-client privilege and was inadvertently produced to the Padgetts during the course of discovery.

The City also requests that the Court strike any copies of the note which are on file in this action and order

that page 226 of Exhibit 3 to the November 1, 2005 deposition of Scott Seaman be removed from the

deposition transcript. The motion was fully briefed and heard by the Court on December 21, 2005. Based

on all papers filed to date, as well as on the oral argument of counsel, the Court denies the motion for a

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 9
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

 The Los Gatos Police Department responded to the subpoena pursuant to a contract between the Town of Los

Gatos and the City, whereby the Department provides police services to the City. See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kirsten

Powell.

2

protective order, finding that the City waived the privilege by failing to move for relief six months ago when

the note was initially produced, or for several months thereafter during which the note was in circulation to

the Court and all parties. 

II. BACKGROUND

The Padgetts initiated this suit claiming, among other things, violation of their civil rights pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The suit is essentially based upon allegations that the Padgetts were singled out for

discriminatory treatment in the process of seeking a building permit for their home, and that City officials

sent them a threatening letter demanding that they leave town. A detailed background regarding the facts

surrounding this dispute has been set forth in prior orders issued by the Court and will not, therefore, be

reiterated here.

The parties' present dispute centers around the production of a handwritten note dated March 8,

2004, which appears in the Court record as part of Exhibit D to Document No. 45, filed on June 29, 2005. 

The note was produced pursuant to a subpoena issued by the Padgetts to the Custodian of Records for the

Los Gatos Police Department, which requested copies of all documents concerning the investigation

performed by the police regarding a complaint the department received from the Padgetts about their

receipt of an anonymous threat letter. In response to the subpoena, Scott Seaman, Chief of the Los Gatos

Police Department ("Seaman"),2 searched for any notes he had concerning the Padgett investigation and

provided those to the Town of Los Gatos attorney, Orry Korb ("Korb"). Korb reviewed the documents

prior to production and proceeded to produce a handwritten note authored by Seaman which reflects a

conversation between Seaman and City Attorney Kirsten Powell. Korb alleges that, due to the manner in

which the note was written, he did not realize it reflected a conversation Seaman had with Powell but,

rather, thought the memo merely noted Powell as someone to whom Seaman needed to speak. See

Declaration of Orb at ¶ 3. Accordingly, all responsive documents, including the handwritten note, were

produced to the Padgetts on June 20, 2005.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 9
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

On June 23, 2005, three days after their receipt of documents from the Los Gatos Police

Department, the Padgetts deposed Loventhal, the person designated most knowledgeable with respect to

the City's attorneys' fees in the state court action. Both the City Attorney, Kirsten Powell, and counsel for

the defendants, Todd Master, attended the deposition, at which the Padgetts introduced the handwritten

notes as an exhibit. Although counsel made numerous objections to the document, including relevance and

foundation, no objection was made based on the attorney-client privilege and, in fact, Loventhal was

permitted to answer questions about the note. Neither the City Attorney, nor defense counsel, raised any

objections to the introduction of the note as an exhibit to the deposition.

Six days later, on June 29, 2005, the handwritten note was attached as part of an exhibit to a

supplemental declaration filed in this Court in support of the Padgetts' motion for physical examination to

obtain the palm prints and fingerprints of numerous current and former City officials. The declaration stated

that the exhibit, "contains [Chief Seaman's] notes of an apparent conversation with Kirsten Powell, listing

information about the criminal pretrial and a civil setting on April 27." See Declaration of Michael Reedy

("Reedy"), Exh. D. On July 5, 2005, defense counsel filed five pages of objections to evidence submitted in

support of the Padgetts' motion, including objections to the handwritten note. See Reedy Declaration, Exh.

E. Those objections, however, were based on foundation, authenticity, and relevance. Id. No one

asserted any objection based on the attorney-client privilege. Id.

In response to defendants' objections, the Padgetts filed a declaration, signed by Chief Seaman,

authenticating his notes and stating that, "The handwritten notes dated March 8, 2004 (page 226)

concerned a conversation I had with Kirsten Powell, the city attorney for the City of Monte Sereno." See

Reedy Decl. at ¶ 11, Exh. F, p. 2, lines 23-24. Further, the Padgetts filed a reply brief in support of their

motion, as well as a reply brief to defendants' objections, in which they noted that the March 8, 2004

document contained Chief Seaman's notes from his conversation with the City Attorney. Reedy Decl., Exh.

G. All three of these documents were filed in this Court on July 7, 2005. In addition, the following day, the

handwritten note was also apparently filed as an exhibit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, as part

of a motion by the Padgetts to compel answers to certain deposition questions. Reedy Decl. at ¶ 14. At no

time did defendants raise an objection that the note was privileged and had been inadvertently produced.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 9
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

On November 1, 2005, the Padgetts deposed Chief Seaman. For the first time, during that

deposition, defendants claimed that the note was protected by the attorney-client privilege and objected to

its use during the deposition. Defendants requested that the Padgetts return the note, along with any and all

copies that may have been made. The Padgetts refused, arguing that the document is not protected by the

privilege, both because no attorney-client relationship arises between the City Attorney of Monte Sereno

and the Los Gatos Police Chief, and based on their interpretation of the note as not containing any

confidential information. They also contend that, even assuming the privilege applies, it was waived as a

result of defendants' failure to assert the privilege in a timely fashion. 

III. STANDARDS

Fed. R. Evid. 501 provides, in pertinent part, that "the privilege of a witness, person, government,

State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be

interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience." The Ninth Circuit has

held that the attorney-client privilege applies, "only when necessary to achieve its limited purpose of

encouraging full and frank disclosure by the client to his or her attorney." Clarke v. American Commerce

National Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992). This Circuit has further held that "correspondence,

bills, ledgers, statements, and time records which also reveal the motive of the client in seeking

representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching

particular areas of law, fall within the privilege." Id. The burden of establishing that the privilege applies

rests with the party asserting the privilege. Id. 

\\\

\\\

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Application of the Privilege

As an initial matter, the City claims the handwritten note that was produced to the Padgetts is

protected by the attorney client privilege because the note memorializes a confidential communication

occurring between the City attorney and the City's "client," in this instance, the Los Gatos/Monte Sereno

Police Department. Although the Padgetts contend that the Department is not the "client" in this instance,

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 9
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

since the documents were produced by the Town of Los Gatos, defendants point out that such contention

falls flat based on the 1995 Agreement for Law Enforcement Services ("Agreement") which governs the

relationship between the Town of Los Gatos and the City. Pursuant to that Agreement, the City pays the

Town for police services and the Chief of Police is considered the City's Chief of Police. See Declaration

of Kirsten Powell, Exh. A at p. 5. Moreover, the City Attorney represented the City in its civil code

enforcement action against the Padgetts in state court. It was, therefore, according to the City, necessary

for the City Attorney to communicate with one of her clients, namely, Chief Seaman, in order to prepare

properly the City's cases and defenses.

The Padgetts also argue that the communication itself does not convey any confidential information

and is not, therefore, protected by the privilege. As defendants acknowledge, the Ninth Circuit has found

the attorney-client privilege applicable to "correspondence, bills, ledgers, statements, and time records

which also reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature

of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law...." Clarke v. American Commerce

National Bank, 974 F.2d at 129. A review of the handwritten note dated March 8, 2004 reveals that it

does not disclose the motive of the client, litigation strategy, the specific nature of the services provided, or

legal research concerning any area of the law. See Doc. 45, Exh. D at pp. 226-227. Rather, the note

appears to memorialize dates and to list items apparently recovered from a particular location. Id. Even

assuming, however, that the attorney-client privilege applies to the note, the City waived the privilege in this

instance by failing timely to pursue all reasonable means of preserving the confidentiality of the note, as

discussed below. 

B. Waiver of the Privilege

"[I]n determining whether a privilege has been waived by the inadvertent production of privileged

documents, courts within the Ninth Circuit consider 'the circumstances surrounding the disclosure,' including

whether the privilege holder has made efforts 'reasonably designed to protect and preserve the privilege.'"

United States v. de la Jara, 973 F.2d 746, 749-750 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The privilege is

deemed waived "if the privilege holder fails to pursue all reasonable means of preserving the confidentiality

of the privileged matter." Id. at 750. 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 5 of 9
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

 Objections to the note based on hearsay, relevance, and foundation were raised. See Reedy Declaration at ¶ 10,

Exh. E at pp. 3-4.

6

As set forth above, the record in this case establishes that, while the handwritten note may have

initially been inadvertently produced to the Padgetts, the City was placed on notice of such production on

three separate occasions and yet failed to take any corrective action. First, on June 23, 2005, the document

was introduced as an exhibit to the deposition of Loventhal, with both defense counsel and the City

attorney present. See Michael Reedy Declaration at ¶ 7. Neither attorney raised the attorney-client

privilege and both counsel permitted Loventhal to answer questions concerning the note. Id. Second, on

July 6, 2005, Chief Seaman filed a declaration which specifically authenticated the handwritten note and

identified it as a communication between himself and the City Attorney. Id. at Exh. F. That declaration,

along with reply briefs filed by the Padgetts on July 7, 2005, referenced the note. Again, however, no

objection to the note was raised by the City on the basis of the attorney-client privilege.3 Third, on July 8,

2005, the note was attached as an exhibit to a motion to compel filed by the Padgetts in state court. Id. at

¶¶ 11-14, Exhs. F-I. Despite all of these filings, the City failed to assert the attorney-client privilege.

The City now contends that waiver did not occur in this instance since it did not immediately

recognize the note as memorializing a confidential conversation between the Chief of Police and the City

Attorney. In addition, the City attempts to shift the blame for its own oversight by arguing that plaintiffs'

counsel had the ethical obligation to refrain from using the privileged document and immediately to notify the

City of its inadvertent production. Neither argument is persuasive in this instance.

While there is no indication that production was other than inadvertent, the problem lies not in that

fact, but in the actions, or lack thereof, that the City took with respect to preserving the confidentiality of

that document once disclosure had been made. Almost immediately following production, just three days

later, a City official, Loventhal, was deposed. At that deposition, the note was discussed and attached to

the deposition as an exhibit, without any assertion of the privilege by the City. 

Nonetheless, giving the City the benefit of the doubt that it again failed during the deposition of

Loventhal to recognize that the note memorialized a conversation between the Chief of Police and the City

Attorney, three days after the deposition, the note was again discussed, this time as an exhibit to a motion

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 6 of 9
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

 Nothing in this order is intended to reach the issue of the scope of the waiver beyond the document at issue, as

that question is not presently before the Court.

7

filed in this Court. The declaration filed by counsel for the Padgetts' clearly stated, with specific reference

to the note, that it is "an apparent conversation with Kirsten Powell." See Reedy Decl. at Exh. D, ¶ 9. 

Certainly if the City had not been placed on notice prior to this declaration that the note memorialized a

conversation between Chief Seaman and the City Attorney, it was so informed by counsel's declaration

filed on June 29, 2005. 

Again, however, indulging every inference in favor of the City and assuming that counsel's

declaration failed to place the City on notice that a potentially confidential document had been produced,

less than a week later, on July 6, 2005, Chief Seaman himself signed a declaration ultimately served and

filed by the Padgetts. See Reedy Decl., Exh. F. That declaration unequivocally states that his notes

memorialize a conversation he had with the City Attorney. Id. Despite such notice, it was not until four

months later, during a deposition on November 1, 2005, and almost five months after the note was initially

produced to the Padgetts, that the City invoked the attorney-client privilege and claimed inadvertent

production. 

With respect to the second contention raised by the City, that counsel for the Padgetts was under

an ethical obligation to inform the City that a confidential document had been produced, the Padgetts

maintain the position that the document is not privileged in the first instance; a claim which as noted above is

not without support. Moreover, as discussed above, the declaration filed by the Padgetts' counsel on June

29, 2005, plainly identified the note as recounting a conversation between Powell and Seaman, thereby

placing the City at least on inquiry notice that a potentially privileged document had been produced.

Based on this record, the City failed timely to pursue all reasonable means to preserve the

confidentiality of the handwritten note dated March 8, 2004. As a result, the City has waived the attorneyclient privilege which may have been applicable to the document.4

 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, defendants' motion for a protective order is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 7 of 9
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 8

Dated: 12/21/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 8 of 9
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 NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Joseph C. Howard , Jr jhoward@hrmrlaw.com, 

tmaster@hrmrlaw.com;dlongstaff@hrmrlaw.com 

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Michael Reedy mreedy@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria jvalenzuelasantamaria@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Dated: 12/21/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 94 Filed 12/21/05 Page 9 of 9