Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05356/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05356-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

ABDELLATIFF HADJI,

Plaintiff-Intervener, 

 v.

ALBION RIVER INN, INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-05356 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

On August 17, 2007, in conjunction with a regularly scheduled Case Management Conference

in this action, the Court heard argument on plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s

(EEOC’s) motion to compel discovery of communications between defendant’s owners and David H.

Jones, Jr. At the Conference, the Court granted defendant’s request to file a surreply, which the Court

has now reviewed. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, for the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS the EEOC’s motion.

The EEOC has sued defendant Albion River Inn for allegedly firing plaintiff-intervener

Abdellatiff Hadji – the former manager of the Inn’s restaurant – in retaliation for asking customers who

had made deeply offensive race- and ethnicity-based remarks to leave the Inn’s restaurant. The Albion

River Inn is owned, in equal shares, by Flurry Healy and Peter Wells. According to defendant, David

H. Jones, Jr. is a Certified Financial Planner and a “good friend” of Healy and Wells, Opposition at 9:3,

and has been assisting Healy and Wells “to resolve their financial and management disagreements” since

September 2003, id. at 23-24. At some point after the Inn fired Hadji, Healy and Wells contacted Jones

Case 3:06-cv-05356-SI Document 36 Filed 09/04/07 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

2

to seek his advice and assistance. 

During deposition of Healy and Wells in this case, defense counsel instructed them not to answer

any questions regarding conversations they had with Jones “in the course of Mr. Jones[’] attempt to

mediate any disputes.” See Wells Depo. at 116. On this basis Healy and Wells refused to answer

questions regarding several conversations in which Jones participated, or during which Jones was

present. See id. at 103-104, 106, 113. Defendant has also apparently withheld e-mails involving Jones

on the same “mediation privilege” basis. 

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant argues that Jones is a “mediator” covered by the

Local Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and that under those rules, Healy’s and Wells’s

communications with Jones are privileged and confidential. Though creative, defendant’s argument is

wholly unconvincing. The Local Rules for ADR were adopted “to make available to litigants a broad

range of court-sponsored ADR processes . . .” ADR L.R. 1-2 (emphasis added). Defendant provides

no evidence that Jones, Healy, and Wells were involved in a court-sponsored ADR process when the

allegedly privileged communications were made. 

In response to this fact, defendant argues that “nothing in Local Rule 6-11,” which provides for

confidentiality, “defines covered ‘mediations’ as only mediations conducted under the Northern

District’s program.” Oppo. at 7:18-19. To the contrary, as stated above, all of the Local Rules for ADR,

including Rule 6-11, apply only to court-sponsored ADR processes. See ADR L.R. 1-2; see also ADR

L.R. 6-2 (“appropriate civil cases may be referred to mediation by order of the assigned Judge following

a stipulation by all parties, on motion by a party under Civil L.R. 7, or on the Judge’s initiative.”).

Wells’s and Healy’s communications with Jones are not protected by the mediation privilege.

In its surreply, defendant shifts its focus away from the Local Rules for ADR, and urges the

Court to consider federal common law. None of the federal common law authority cited by defendant,

however, would protect the communications at issue here. While there may exist a “federal mediation

privilege applicable to all communications made in conjunction with a formal mediation,” Folb v.

Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1179-80 (C.D. Cal. 1998), there

is no “formal mediation” at issue here. At its most fundamental, mediation is an attempt, by a neutral

third party, to help adverse parties reconcile their disputes. In this case, Jones was certainly not a

Case 3:06-cv-05356-SI Document 36 Filed 09/04/07 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

neutral third party, and his primary role was to help Wells and Healy settle disputes they had between

each other. He apparently became involved with this case only because Wells and Healy disagreed as

to whether Mr. Hadji had been treated fairly.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendant must

produce all withheld documents concerning or consisting of communications with David H. Jones, Jr.,

and defendant must produce Wells and Healy for additional deposition regarding such communications.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4 , 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05356-SI Document 36 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3