Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO YATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01077-MEJ 

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 96

Defendant West Contra Costa Unified School District produced to Plaintiff Fernando 

Yates an email written by Defendant’s former counsel, Mary Keany. See Letter, Dkt. No. 96. On 

December 30, 2016, Plaintiff attached that email as an exhibit to a motion to compel, circling, 

underlining, and starring the portion written by Ms. Keany. See Mot., Ex. G, Dkt. No. 57. On 

February 3, 2017, Defendant informed Plaintiff of the inadvertent disclosure and requested he 

destroy or return all copies of the privileged email. See Letter at 2. Plaintiff refused to do so, 

arguing any privilege had been waived: “Plaintiff had access to that letter for several months 

before defendant counsel giving notice, and included in a pleading December 30, 2016, and 

Defendant’s counsel failed to object at that time.” Id. He also argues privilege is waived under 

the crime/fraud exception. Id.

Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) provides that disclosure of a protected communication 

does not waive the attorney-client privilege or work product protection where “(1) the disclosure is 

inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent 

disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error[.]” Defendant has 

not satisfied its burden of showing it meets any of these requirements. The only information 

Defendant provides about the email is that it “was inadvertently produced among the 375 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 97 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

documents produced to Plaintiff to date.” See Letter at 1. Defendant does not provide any details

from the attorney or entity that produced the email to support its contention the email was 

inadvertently produced, and how it came to be produced. Defendant does not describe what steps 

it took to prevent the disclosure, nor explain how a privileged document was overlooked in a 

production of this manageable size. Defendant also cannot show it “promptly took steps to rectify 

the error” when it did not inform Plaintiff of the disclosure immediately after he attached the 

privileged communication to his December 30, 2016 filing. Instead of “promptly” informing 

Plaintiff of the inadvertent disclosure and requesting he return or destroy all copies of the 

communication, Defendant waited over one month to ask Plaintiff to do so. Finally, Defendant 

waited an additional month before bringing the dispute to this Court’s attention. Defendant 

provides no explanation for the delay in requesting Plaintiff return the inadvertently produced 

email, nor for the additional delay in seeking redress from the Court. 

Under these circumstances, the Court finds Defendant waived the attorney-client privilege 

and work product protection for Ms. Keany’s email.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 97 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 2