Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01026/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01026-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT SCHMIDT and THOMAS WALSH,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LEVI STRAUSS & CO., LAURA LIANG and

DOES 1-50,

Defendants. /

RELATED COUNTER-ACTION

 /

No. C04-01026 RMW (HRL)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT LEVI

STRAUSS & CO.’S MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION

[Docket No. 177]

Defendant Levi Strauss & Co. (“LS&Co.”) moves for clarification of this court’s

September 10, 2007 “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Documents and a Privilege Log.” Part of that underlying discovery dispute concerned

documents that plaintiff Schmidt had in his possession when he was fired by LS&Co. Plaintiffs

returned the documents in question to LS&Co. and then sought to have LS&Co. produce them

in discovery. LS&Co. produced some, but not all of the documents; and, this court

subsequently granted plaintiff’s motion to compel. (See September 10, 2007 Order, Docket No.

176 at pp. 4-5).

The parties now dispute whether LS&Co. is obliged to produce all previously withheld

documents or only a subset of them. Assuming LS&Co. is obliged to produce all documents,

*E-FILED 11/16/2007*

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 183 Filed 11/16/07 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

1 Plaintiffs failed to timely file their opposition brief and offered no explanation

for the delay. This is not the first time they have done so; and, they have previously been

admonished to make timely filings. (See Docket No. 150, n. 1). This court has accepted and

considered plaintiffs’ late-filed opposition because it does not find that there was undue

prejudice to defendants by the delay. However, it takes a dim view of plaintiffs’ repeated

and casual disregard of filing deadlines. In the future, plaintiffs shall be required to show

good cause and lack of prejudice before their belated filings will be considered.

2

the parties also disagree whether it may now prepare a privilege log for any of the documents it

claims are privileged. This court took the matter under submission without oral argument. 

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers,1

 the court orders as follows:

The September 10, 2007 order was meant to require LS&Co. to produce all previously

withheld documents, not just a subset of them. To the extent LS&Co. seems to be seeking

reconsideration of that ruling, it has not presented any new material facts or law. LS&Co. shall

produce all of the withheld documents no later than November 30, 2007.

As for any claimed privileged documents – to be sure, LS&Co. asserted in its underlying

papers that some documents were privileged. But it made no attempt to substantiate its

assertion – except, perhaps, for defense counsel’s suggestion at oral argument that the

documents were privileged because they were created or received by Schmidt, who was an

attorney in its tax department during his employment. Based on the record presented, the court

expressed doubt as to LS&Co.’s assertions as to any privilege or waiver. Nevertheless, LS&Co.

will be permitted an opportunity to now prepare a privilege log, so that any asserted privilege or

protection can properly be assessed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). LS&Co.’s privilege log shall

be produced no later than November 30, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

November 16, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 183 Filed 11/16/07 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

5:04-cv-1026 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Joseph Heathcliff Ainley JAinley@popelka.com, gsimmons@popelka.com 

Franklin Edward Bondonno fbondonno@popelka.com, dlee@popelka.com 

Adi Herzberg aherzberg@gibsondunn.com, bhonniball@gibsondunn.com,

mjanky@gibsondunn.com 

Philip Edward Kay phil@nosexualharassment.com 

Rebecca Justice Lazarus rjustice@gibsondunn.com, rmcbain@gibsondunn.com 

Jeffrey Alan Leon jleon@leonandleon.com, leonandleon@leonandleon.com 

Jeffry William Lochner jlochner@popelka.com, jlochner@verizon.net,

kanderson@popelka.com 

Sheila Marie Pierce sheila.pierce@bingham.com 

Gabriel Neil Rubin grubin@stblaw.com, hlelaind@stblaw.com, jlaw@stblaw.com 

Erin E. Schneider eschneider@gibsondunn.com 

Austin Van Schwing aschwing@gibsondunn.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 183 Filed 11/16/07 Page 3 of 3