Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY LUM, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-10-1807 LKK DAD

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, ORDER

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

By order issued November 18, 2011, plaintiffs’ motion to compel further

responses to their Special Interrogatories (Set One) and to compel further production of

documents responsive to their Request for Production of Documents (Set One) was granted in

part and denied in part. The written order issued that same date required that on or before

December 5, 2011, counsel for the defendants to file submit a declaration setting forth the goodfaith efforts taken in responding to plaintiff’s discovery requests discussed at the hearing. In

addition, by that same date counsel for defendants was required to submit for in camera review

the letter to file which the defense was asserting as to a portion the attorney-client privilege. 

Below, the court addresses each aspect of defendants’ compliance with that order.

/////

/////

1

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 64 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 4
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

I. Declaration Re Efforts Made to Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests 

On December 5, 2011, in an attempt to comply with the court’s order, counsel for

defendants filed the declaration of San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant John

Basalto regarding the good-faith efforts undertaken in responding to plaintiffs’ discovery requests

discussed at the November 18, 2011 hearing. Sgt. Basalto’s declaration addresses what

information the officers arresting Jeremy Lum on July 8, 2009, would have had access to through

the various databases available on the computerized console of their police vehicles. In addition,

Sgt. Basalto attached to his declaration as Exhibits A-D the records which he printed out from

each of those various databases at his work station on December 1, 2011. 

1

In general, the court finds Sgt. Basalto’s declaration and attachments thereto to

satisfy the requirements of the court’s November 21, 2011 order. However, due to either

typographical or printing error, the declaration was submitted with a line or lines at the bottom of

pages 2 and 3 obviously cut-off, resulting in incomplete sentences. Because the court cannot

determine whether anything of substance was omitted, defendants will be required to file an

amended declaration correcting this error within fourteen days of the date of this order. 

II. Assertion of the Attorney-Client Privilege as to Letter to File

In addition, on December 5, 2011, defense counsel submitted the October 1, 2009

letter from Sgt. Basalto to the file, along with an explanation of the basis for defendants’

assertion of the attorney-client privilege as to the redacted portion of that document, for incamera review. The court has conducted that in camera review and finds defendants’ assertion of

the attorney-client privilege with respect to the letter to be insufficiently supported. 

“[A] party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the

[existence of an attorney-client] relationship and the privileged nature of the communication.”

United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Bauer, 132

 Those attached documents appear to be the supplemental production of documents by 1

defendants anticipated in the court’s November 21, 2011, order. 

2

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 64 Filed 01/05/12 Page 2 of 4
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

F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1997)). Moreover, “the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.”

Id. (quoting United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002)).

An eight-part test determines whether information is covered by the

attorney-client 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 disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the

protection be waived.

United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 607).

Here, it appears that Sgt. Basalto was an employee of the defendant entity acting

in the scope of his employment and communicating with counsel for the entity. See Upjohn Co.

v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 391-93 (1981); Graf, 610 F.3d at 1157-59. However, defendants

have made no showing that the redacted portion of Sgt. Basalto’s letter to the file reflects a

communication between an employee of defendant, acting in the course of his employment, and

the defendant’s professional legal advisor. It is true that “[a] memorandum to a file may be

protected where it records a confidential attorney-client communication.” In re Rivastigmine

Patent Litigation, 237 F.R.D. 69, 83 (S.D. N.Y. 2006); see also Baxter Healthcare Corporations,

et al., v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., No. C 07-1359 PJH (JL), 2009 WL 533124, at 

*1, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (where a document “by its nature and contents memorializes and

reflects legal advice rendered in a privileged conversation” it is appropriately withheld as

privileged); Parvati Corp v. City of Oak Forest et al., No. 08 C 702, 2010 WL 4822927, at *2

(N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2010) (holding that a memorandum to file concerning conversations between

defendants and their counsel about the subject matter of the litigation was protected by the

attorney-client privilege). Nonetheless, to be protected by the privilege, any such memorandum

must record a privileged communication and the party asserting the privilege has the burden of

establishing that all elements of the privilege’s applicability have been met. In re Rivastigmine

3

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 64 Filed 01/05/12 Page 3 of 4
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

Patent Litigation, 237 F.R.D. at 83. Moreover, the mere fact that a person consulted an attorney

is not generally privileged information. In re Osterhoudt, 722 F.3d 591, 593 (9th Cir. 1983) (the

mere fact of legal representation is preliminary and does not necessarily involve the disclosure of

any communication arising from that relation) (citing Chirac v. Reinicker, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.)

280 (1826); see also United States v. Robinson, 121 F.3d 971, 976 (5th Cir. 1997); Abels v. JBC

Legal Group, P.C., No. 5:04CV2345JW(RS), 2005 WL 3839308, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2005)

Here, the redacted portion of the letter to file clearly appears not to reveal any

communication from Sgt. Basalto, the client’s employee, to counsel. Moreover, the redacted

portion of the memorandum also does not appear to reflect any communication from counsel to

Sgt. Basalto. As such, defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that the

redacted portion of Sgt. Basalto’s October 1, 2009 letter to the file is protected from disclosure

by the attorney-client privilege. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the unredacted October 1, 2009

letter to the file by Sgt. Balsalto shall be produced to plaintiffs’ counsel within fourteen days of

the date of this order.2

DATED: January 4, 2012.

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.civil\lum10cv1807.attyclient.mtc

 If defendants conclude that they can satisfy their burden in this regard, they may move 2

to reconsider prior to this compliance date based upon a proper showing.

4

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 64 Filed 01/05/12 Page 4 of 4