Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04999/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04999-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY DELGADILLO, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEAN AND MAI DAILY,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-4999 PVT

ORDER RE MID-DEPOSITION

DISPUTE

On July 1, 2010, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull by

telephone for hearing regarding a dispute which arose during the deposition of Defendant Mai

Daily. Based on the arguments presented, 1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ objection based on the federal marital

communication privilege to any deposition questions regarding confidential communications

between Defendants is SUSTAINED. 

Federal law governs claims of privilege in cases that include both federal and state law

claims. See, Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 458 (N.D.Cal. 1978) (“in federal

question cases where pendent state claims are raised the federal common law of privileges should

Case 5:09-cv-04999-PVT Document 24 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 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

Even if the California marital privilege governed, the exception cited by Plaintiffs –

2

California Evidence Code section 973(b) – applies only to a spouse’s privilege not to testify against his

or her spouse, which is set forth in California Evidence Code section 970. No such exception applies

to the confidential marital communication privilege set forth in California Evidence Code section 980.

ORDER, page 2

govern all claims of privilege raised in the litigation”); see also e.g., Fallowfield Development Corp.

v. Strunk, 1990 WL 52749, *2, *5 (1990) (applying the federal marital communication privilege to

all claims in case involving both state and federal claims).2

The federal marital communications privilege covers statements privately communicated by

one spouse to another. See Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332, 333 (1951). Marital

communications are presumptively confidential. Ibid. Thus, the federal marital communications

privilege appears to bar any deposition questions to Defendants regarding the content of their private

communications.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving for

reconsideration in the event they can show that either: 1) the communications they wish to ask

Defendants about were not private; or 2) any other exception to the federal marital communications

privilege applies to those communications.

Dated: July 1, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:09-cv-04999-PVT Document 24 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 2