Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00558/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00558-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

CARRIE L. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-00558 SBA (EDL)

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF

PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S

JOURNAL; GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FEES

RELATING TO THE MOTION FOR IN

CAMERA REVIEW AND AWARDING

DEFENDANT’S COST FOR

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff, a physical education teacher at Miller

Creek School in the Dixie School District from August 2001 through June 2003, claims that she was

subjected to discrimination and was essentially forced to resign. On March 10, 2005, Defendant

filed two discovery motions and a motion for fees and costs. On June 6, 2005, the Court issued an

Order denying without prejudice Defendant’s Motion for Discovery Referee, granting Defendant’s

request for in camera review of Plaintiff’s personal journal and awarding some fees to Defendant. 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to produce an unredacted copy of the journal for in camera review to

determine whether the redacted portions were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court

deferred ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Fees relating to the Motion for In Camera Review, and

stated that Defendant was entitled to the cost of the videotape for Plaintiff’s second deposition that

would be awarded upon submission of evidence of that cost. 

Plaintiff’s personal journal

Plaintiff kept a personal journal in which she recorded her day-to-day experiences with the

Dixie School District for the period February 27, 2003 through May 26, 2003, the last few months of

her employment with the District. Six portions of the journal were redacted based on the attorneyCase 4:04-cv-00558-SBA Document 62 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

client privilege. Plaintiff never asserted any other privilege, such as the psychotherapist-patient

privilege, in connection with the redactions. 

The Court has reviewed the unredacted copy of Plaintiff’s personal journal and has found

that some portions were improperly redacted based on the attorney-client privilege. Some of the

redacted material consists primarily of words inserted in very small handwriting and the surrounding

sentences written in normal-sized handwriting. Plaintiff shall produce the portions as described

below to Defendant no later than July 5, 2005. 

April 8 redaction: Only the portion of text written in small print between the first and

second lines of this entry is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The remainder does not

reflect attorney-client communications and therefore shall be unredacted and produced to Defendant. 

April 23 redaction: The first two sentences are not privileged because they do not reflect

attorney-client communications. Those sentences shall be unredacted and produced to Defendant. 

The last lengthy sentence is protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

April 30 redaction: Only the two words of text written in small print between the second

and third words of the redacted segment are privileged and may be redacted. The remainder of this

portion of the journal is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because it does not contain any

attorney-client communication. 

First May 2 redaction: The only portions of this four-line segment that are protected by the

attorney-client privilege are: (1) the two words of text written in small print between the second and

third words of this segment; and (2) the last sentence. The remainder is not privileged because it

does not contain any attorney-client communication, and therefore must be produced to Defendant. 

Second May 2 redaction: This redacted portion of the journal is protected by the attorneyclient privilege.

May 7 redaction: This text is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because it does

not reflect any communication between Plaintiff and her counsel. This segment shall be unredacted

and produced to Defendant. 

//

Case 4:04-cv-00558-SBA Document 62 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 3
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

//

Motion for Fees

Defendant seeks an award of fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(a)(4) relating to the discovery motion regarding Plaintiff’s journal. Because Defendant’s motion

to compel is granted in part, reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion may be apportioned

among the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(4)(C). 

Defense counsel stated that he spent six hours preparing the motion and estimated that he

would spend three hours preparing the reply brief, and that his hourly rate is $145.00. See Shupe

Decl. In Support of Motion for Fees at ¶ 4. The amount of time expended and the billing rate is

reasonable given the work performed. Because only some of the redactions were appropriate based

on the attorney-client privilege, a fair apportionment of Defendant’s expenses is for Plaintiff to pay

half of Defendant’s fees. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Fees relating to the Motion for

Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Unredacted Journal is granted in the amount of $652.50 for

attorney’s fees. 

Cost for videotape

In the June 6, 2005 Order, the Court held that Defendant was entitled to the cost of the

videotape for Plaintiff’s second deposition. Defendant timely submitted an invoice for that service

in the amount of $638.50, which Plaintiff shall reimburse. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00558-SBA Document 62 Filed 06/23/05 Page 3 of 3