Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Blake Smalley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. Contino, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02524-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the Court’s order of April 22, 2014 (Doc. 151), Defendant Maricopa 

County has submitted 20 sets of minutes from executive sessions of the Maricopa County 

Board of Supervisors for in camera review. The County is withholding these minutes, 

which are responsive to a list of search terms provided by Plaintiff, on the ground that 

they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court has reviewed the minutes 

and concludes that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

 In the Ninth Circuit, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential disclosures 

made by a client to an attorney in order to obtain legal advice as well as an attorney’s 

advice in response to such disclosures. United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607-08 

(9th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Courts look to an eight-part test to determine whether information is covered by the 

privilege: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal 

adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made 

in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 154 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived. Ruehle, 

583 F.3d at 608 (citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 n.2 (9th Cir. 

1992)). 

 In each of the meetings for which minutes were reviewed, the Board receives 

updates and advice on pending litigation from either outside counsel, one or more 

attorneys from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, or a lawyer designated as 

“counsel to the Board.” The minutes constitute summaries of discussions between the 

Board and whichever attorney is presenting on a given case. Presentations by attorneys 

usually contain a summary of the facts or procedural posture of a specific case, the 

presenting attorney’s recommendations on how to proceed in the case, and questions 

from individual supervisors about the litigation. Each of the presenting attorneys, 

whether from the County Attorney’s office or an outside law firm, represents Maricopa 

County’s interest in the pending litigation. A.R.S. § 11-201(A) provides that only a 

county board of supervisors may exercise the powers of a county, including the ability to 

sue and be sued. As such, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has the power to 

direct the County’s course of action in pending litigation, and legal advice received by 

the Board on matters involving Maricopa County or its units is subject to the attorneyclient privilege. 

 In the minutes reviewed, there are a few instances where individual supervisors 

make general comments not directed at the presenting attorney, either expressing the 

opinion of the supervisor or generally commenting on proposed actions under 

consideration by the Board. The Court concludes that these statements are privileged 

because they relate to the purpose of seeking legal advice. Additionally, there are 

portions of a few meetings where the Board discusses facilities management or real estate 

transactions and receives presentations from non-lawyer County employees. These 

portions of the minutes are not privileged, but they also are not responsive to Plaintiff’s 

search terms. 

 The Court concludes that the County has properly withheld the documents 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 154 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

reviewed in camera under the attorney-client privilege. In light of this conclusion, the 

Court will not require the County to produce to Plaintiff the other documents contained in 

the County’s privilege log. 

 The parties shall complete the depositions of the supervisors discussed at the 

hearing on April 22, 2014, by May 30, 2014. The parties shall file supplements to their 

motions for summary judgment, not to exceed seven pages, by June 6, 2014, after which 

the motions will be deemed submitted. 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 154 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 3