Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENERAL CHARLES E. 

“CHUCK”YEAGER (RET.); ED 

BOWLIN; CONNIEBOWLIN; 

AVIATION AUTOGRAPHS;BOWLIN & 

ASSOCIATES, INC.; LAWOFFICES OF 

JOANNA R. MENDOZA,P.C.; DE LA 

PENA & HOLIDAY, LLP; LESSER LAW 

GROUP, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

On March 24, 2015, the court held an evidentiary hearing to allow the parties to 

present evidence on Parker White’s authority to enter a settlement agreement on General Charles 

E. “Chuck” Yeager’s (Ret.) and Victoria Yeager’s behalf. See Minutes, ECF No. 167. The court 

has previously held that by asserting Mr. White lacked authority, General Yeager waived his 

attorney-client privilege as to documents addressing Mr. White’s authority. See Order Feb. 11, 

2015, at 4–6, ECF No. 158. 

At the March 24 evidentiary hearing, after the court clarified the scope of the 

waiver on the record, Mrs. Yeager introduced what was labeled as Exhibit A, an email addressed 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 170 Filed 03/31/15 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 

2

to Mr. White dated September 4, 2014, 5:46 p.m. That e-mail was admitted at Mrs. Yeager’s 

request over Parsons Behle’s objection that it was incomplete without its attachment. See

Minutes, ECF No. 167. 

In a related case, Yeager et al. v. Parsons Behle & Latimer, et al., No. 2:14-cv2544-KJM-DAD, General and Mrs. Yeager seek damages for Parsons Behle’s alleged legal 

malpractice and related claims. Compl., Not. Removal Ex. A, Case No. 14-cv-2544, ECF 

No. 1-1. On March 20, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge in that case held a hearing on General 

and Mrs. Yeager’s motion to remand in that case. See Minutes, Case No. 14-cv-2544, ECF No. 

31. On March 25, 2015, the day after the evidentiary hearing in this case, Parsons Behle 

submitted to Judge Drozd the supplemental declaration of John Zarian in opposition to the 

Yeagers’ motion to remand; this declaration attached Exhibit A, the exhibit Mrs. Yeager 

introduced at the evidentiary hearing before this court. See Zarian Decl., Case No. 14-cv-2544, 

ECF No. 32. 

The next day, Parsons Behle filed a noticed motion for clarification in this court 

seeking to clarify that it may disclose Exhibit A in the related case. ECF No. 168. In a 

declaration attached to this motion, Mr. Zarian reports, 

Upon receipt of the foregoing supplemental declaration, Ms. 

Yeager immediately sent an email taking the position that the 

foregoing use of Ms. Yeager’s email—which was admitted as 

Exhibit “A” during the evidentiary hearing—was a “misuse” of the 

document because any waiver of the attorney-client privilege was 

limited “to the evidentiary hearing.” 

. . . 

Ms. Yeager and I were unable to resolve the foregoing dispute. In 

subsequent emails, Ms. Yeager threatened to file “ex parte motions” 

seeking unspecified “sanctions” for having brought her email to the 

attention of Judge Drozd in the formally related Removed Action. 

Zarian Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, ECF No. 168-2. 

As provided by Local Rule 230(g), Parsons Behle’s motion is submitted on the 

record. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Addressing the suggestion that Mrs. Yeager can limit 

consideration of Exhibit A to the proceedings before the undersigned, as this court previously has 

observed: “[s]ustaining the privilege” in these circumstances “would allow the client to use it 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 170 Filed 03/31/15 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 

3

both as sword and shield, impermissibly.” Order Feb. 11, 2015, ECF No. 158; see also Chevron 

Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992); People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender, 

212 Cal. App. 4th 614, 647 (2012). General and Mrs. Yeager previously have waived any 

privilege that would have protected Exhibit A, including in the related case, by asserting that Mr. 

White lacked authority to settle this case on their behalf.1 This court has not limited the waiver to 

this case. Mrs. Yeager confirmed the waiver by introducing, and General Yeager by allowing the 

introduction of, Exhibit A at the evidentiary hearing before this court. The motion for 

clarification, ECF No. 168, is GRANTED as set forth here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 30, 2015. 

 

1

 The waiver by General Yeager occurred initially before this court had reason to raise 

questions regarding his competency to represent himself in this action, a question the court has 

now asked the parties to brief. See ECF 169. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 170 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 3