Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01902-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAFAEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY, INC.

Defendant. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C- 07-1902 RMW PVT

ORDER REQUIRING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FROM

SAFEWAY AND CONTINUING

HEARING ON MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY

On December 11, 20007, Defendant Safeway Inc. (“Safeway”), filed a motion to compel

documents from Plaintiff Rafael Diaz (“Diaz”).1 The motion is currently set for hearing on

January 15, 2008. Among other things, Safeway seeks to compel documents in response to

Request Number Six, seeking: 

[a]ll documents, including, but not limited to, diaries, daily planners, journals,

logs of any sort, memoranda, electronic mail, notes or notations of any kind,

correspondence with potential witnesses, and written or recorded statements or

videotapes, relating in any way to any of the matters alleged in any document

filed by Rafael Diaz with any Court in this matter.

(Rogers Decl., Exh. A at p 2-3.) Diaz has objected to this request: “This request I am unsure of

and seems to be privileged and need legal advice.” (Rogers Decl., Exh. B. at p. 2). This

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 68 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER, page 2

request appears to call for documents that may be protected by the work product immunity.

Rule 26 provides that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). The work product immunity is intended to “prevent

exploitation of a party's efforts in preparing for litigation.” Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States

District Court, 881 F. 2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir. 1989) Id. Nonetheless, if the documents are

relevant, they may be discovered if “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(ii). 

Safeway appears most focused on obtaining witness statements taken by Diaz. Safeway,

however, has not made the requisite showing of substantial need and undue hardship under Rule

26(b)(3). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. No later than December 21, 2007, Safeway shall file a supplemental brief

addressing its substantial need for, and undue hardship in obtaining, the

witness statements; and

2. The hearing on Safeway’s Motion to Compel production of documents is

continued to January 29, 2008; Diaz shall file an opposition no later than

January 7, 2008 and Safeway shall file its reply no later than January 14,

2008.

It Is So Ordered. 

Dated: December 13, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 68 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

copies mailed on 12/13/07 to:

Plaintiff Rafael Diaz

Rafael Diaz

835 Sylandale Avenue

San Jose, CA 95111 

/s/ Carolyn Frantz for 

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 68 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 3