Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00961/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00961-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stephanie McCollum, as conservator for the 

minor wrongful death beneficiaries, on 

behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries; 

and as Personal Representative of the estate 

of Marcela Baca, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-00961-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants have filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion of the 

attorney-client privilege with respect to certain fact witnesses in this case. Doc. 49. 

Plaintiff’s counsel have filed a response (Docs. 53, 54) and Defendants have replied 

(Docs. 57, 58). No party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the 

motion will be denied. 

 Defendants incorrectly style their motion as a motion to strike. Under Local Rule 

of Civil Procedure 7.2(m), a motion to strike may be filed only if it is authorized by 

statute or rule. LRCiv 7.2(m)(1). Defendants purport to file their motion to strike under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), but that rule does not authorize motions to strike. 

The Court will construe Defendants’ motion as a motion to compel evidence under Rule 

37(a). 

 The affidavit of Rose Marie Baca and Jose Vasquez establishes that they have 

retained attorney Andrew Alex (one of the Plaintiff’s counsel in this case) to represent 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 59 Filed 04/04/12 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 

them in matters arising out of the death of Marcela Baca. A number of different 

proceedings are identified in the affidavit. Doc. 54-1. The declaration of Diana Alvarez 

establishes that she has retained attorney Mark Gilling (another of the Plaintiff’s counsel 

in this case) to represent her interests with respect to claims arising out of the death of 

Marcela Baca. Doc. 54-2. Defendants have provided no evidence to contradict these 

assertions. 

 Defendants seem to argue that Plaintiff’s counsel cannot represent a fact witness in 

this litigation. They cite no authority for such proposition. So far as the Court is aware, 

lawyers and clients are free to agree upon the nature and scope of representation. If a fact 

witness agrees to be represented by a Plaintiff’s counsel for purposes of litigation, he or 

she is free to do so. The affidavit and declaration make clear that the fact witnesses in 

this motion have retained Plaintiff’s counsel to represent them generally with respect to 

claims arising out of the death of Marcela Baca. The fact that these witnesses are not the 

actual claimants in this lawsuit does not somehow prevent them from entering into such 

an attorney-client agreement. Nor does it prevent them from utilizing their retained 

counsel to protect their interests at the deposition. Defendants have provided no basis for 

defeating this attorney-client privilege. 

 Defendants argue that the privilege must be asserted on a question-by-question 

basis. Doc. 50, at 5. Although this is true, it is clear that Plaintiff’s counsel asserted the 

privilege and instructed the witnesses not to answer only with respect to questions 

concerning communications between the witnesses and their lawyers. Because such 

communications clearly are privileged, the instruction and objection are appropriate. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Doc. 49) is denied. 

 Dated this 4th day of April, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 59 Filed 04/04/12 Page 2 of 2