Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01026/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01026-8/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 1 Plaintiffs failed to timely file their opposition brief and offered no explanation

for the delay. Their opposition, which was due March 20, 2007, was not filed until March

27, 2007 – i.e., the same day LS&Co.’s reply was due. See Civ. L.R. 7-3. This court has

accepted and considered plaintiffs’ belated brief. However, it does not condone the failure to

make timely filings and warns against future non-compliance.

NOT FOR CITATION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 GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT LEVI

STRAUSS & CO.’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DOCUMENTS

[Re: Docket No. 133]

On April 10, 2007, this court heard the “Motion to Compel the Production of

Documents” filed by defendant Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.). Plaintiffs Robert Schmidt and

Thomas Walsh opposed the motion. Upon consideration of the papers filed by the parties,1

 as

well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in

part.

*E-FILED: 4/11/2007*

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 7
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

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1541A. Plaintiffs

are former employees of defendant LS&Co. and worked under the supervision of defendant

Laura Liang. They claim that they were terminated in retaliation for filing complaints about

defendants’ alleged tax fraud and other accounting irregularities. They also allege that

defendants defamed them. Defendants contend that plaintiffs were fired for insubordination and

for work performance issues.

Before filing the instant lawsuit, plaintiffs filed a Sarbanes-Oxley complaint against

LS&Co. with the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”). In that proceeding, a DOL investigator,

Robert Paine, interviewed both plaintiffs in or around June or July 2003. LS&Co. says that in

those interviews, plaintiffs provided information about the same alleged tax and accounting

improprieties which are at issue in this litigation, as well as information about their employment

relationships with other LS&Co. employees.

Several documents were generated in connection with the DOL interview process. 

Paine prepared summaries of the interviews, which he gave to plaintiffs for their review. 

Plaintiffs provided corrections to the initial summaries, and those corrections reportedly were

incorporated into the DOL’s final interview summaries dated September 8, 2003. Additionally,

Paine sent written questions to plaintiffs, and plaintiffs submitted their answers in writing to the

DOL.

Plaintiffs have produced some documents pertaining to the DOL proceedings – namely,

the DOL’s initial interview summaries; the September 8, 2003 final interview summary re

Walsh; an incomplete copy of the September 8, 2003 final interview summary re Schmidt; and

Paine’s written questions to plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs refuse to produce the following three

categories of documents, which are now the subject of the instant motion to compel:

(1) plaintiffs’ corrections to the DOL’s initial interview summaries;

(2) plaintiffs’ answers to Paine’s questions; and

(3) a complete copy of the DOL’s final summary of Schmidt’s interview.

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 7
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Whether the Instant Motion is Moot

Preliminarily, plaintiffs contend that the instant motion is moot. They assert that they

agreed to produce only a limited category of documents which they obtained from the DOL

through their request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiffs say that because

all of those documents have been produced, LS&Co.’s motion to compel should be denied. 

Further, plaintiffs argue that they should not be compelled to produce anything more because

(a) they never agreed to produce any other documents and (b) LS&Co. never requested the

documents during discovery.

Despite plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary, the record presented shows that LS&Co. did,

in fact, serve a formal request on each plaintiff seeking “[a]ll documents that refer or relate to

any complaint you made to anyone at any governmental agency of any activity at LS&Co. that

you characterized as illegal.” (See Schwing Decl., Ex. L (Document Request No. 21 to Walsh)

and Ex. M (Document Request No. 21 to Schmidt)). The documents at issue are responsive to

those requests. For purposes of resolving the instant motion, it is immaterial whether plaintiffs

agreed to produce only some responsive documents. Accordingly, the court declines to find

that the issues raised by the instant discovery motion are moot.

B. Whether the Work Product Doctrine Applies

Alternatively, plaintiffs argue that the requested documents are protected by the work

product doctrine. However, they have failed to demonstrate that the materials in question

qualify as “work product” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).

Plaintiffs assert that the documents at issue contain their attorneys’ “mental

impressions.” At the motion hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that he acted as a conduit for

plaintiffs’ communications to the DOL. Additionally, he says that he understood (at least

initially) that communications with the DOL would be confidential – albeit, the DOL

investigator later indicated that the confidentiality (or not) of communications would be

determined in some ad hoc fashion on a “case-by-case basis.” (Ainley Decl., ¶ 4). But

plaintiffs have not convincingly demonstrated that the work product doctrine applies to

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 7
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 At oral argument, plaintiffs suggested that the documents at issue are like

those belonging to attorney Steven Todrys, which this court previously concluded were

protected by the work product doctrine. However, as LS&Co. correctly points out, Todrys

produced all documents which had been disclosed to various government entities.

4

documents which were disclosed to the government2

 and which plaintiffs say are equally

available to LS&Co. through normal discovery avenues.

Plaintiffs suggest that any documents they exchanged with the DOL somehow became

“work product” because, they say, LS&Co. could have, but did not, make any effort to obtain

the documents directly from the DOL. Here, plaintiffs twist the general principle that materials

which otherwise qualify as work product may be discovered “only upon a showing that the

party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party’s

case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of

the materials by other means.” FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(3). As discussed above, plaintiffs have

failed to show that the documents in question qualify as “work product” in the first instance. In

any event – and despite plaintiffs’ counsel’s attestation to the contrary (see Ainley Decl., ¶ 12) –

the record before the court indicates that (a) LS&Co. submitted two FOIA requests to the DOL

and (b) defense counsel advised plaintiffs’ counsel, orally and in writing, about LS&Co.’s

pending FOIA requests (to which there apparently has not yet been a response). (See Lazarus

Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. B).

Accordingly, this court concludes that the work product doctrine does not apply.

C. Specific Documents at Issue

1. Plaintiffs’ Corrections to the Initial Interview Summaries

LS&Co. moves to compel plaintiffs’ corrections to the DOL’s initial interview

summaries. There is no dispute that the DOL interviews are relevant. Plaintiffs argue that they

never agreed to produce their corrections; but, as discussed above, the documents are

responsive to LS&Co.’s document requests which were served well within the period allotted

for fact discovery. Moreover, plaintiffs have already produced both the DOL’s initial and final

interview summaries (albeit, as discussed below, the final summary re Schmidt apparently is

incomplete). This court sees no reason why LS&Co. should be barred from obtaining plaintiffs’

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

corrections which reportedly culminated in the final interview summaries that have already

been produced.

Accordingly, LS&Co.’s motion as to these documents is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Answers to the DOL Investigator’s Questions

Plaintiffs have produced a copy of the DOL investigator’s questions. Those questions

appear to pertain to the same allegations of tax and accounting fraud that are at issue in the

instant lawsuit. (See Lazarus Decl., Ex. A). There being no dispute as to the relevance of the

questions, plaintiffs have failed to offer any convincing reason why they should be permitted to

withhold their answers to those questions. Accordingly, LS&Co.’s motion as to these

documents is GRANTED.

3. Complete Version of the DOL’s Final Summary of Schmidt’s Interview

Plaintiffs have produced a copy of the DOL’s final summary of Schmidt’s interview. 

That copy apparently is missing some pages, but plaintiffs say that is how the documents were

received from the DOL – perhaps due to a clerical oversight at the DOL. They represent that

they do not possess a complete copy of that summary. LS&Co. acknowledges that plaintiffs

need only produce documents which are in their “possession, custody or control.” See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). It nevertheless contends that because the DOL released the documents to

plaintiffs, plaintiffs should be deemed to “control” the documents such that they bear the burden

of requesting a complete copy from the DOL.

LS&Co. cites two cases – neither of which dictate the result it seeks here. The first case,

Legato Sys., Inc. Securities Litig., 204 F.R.D. 167 (N.D. Cal. 2001) is distinguishable from the

situation under consideration. In that case, the court concluded that the transcript of defendant’s

testimony before the Securities Exchange Commision (SEC) was deemed to be in defendant’s

“control” such that he was obliged to order a copy of that transcript from the SEC and produce

it in response to plaintiffs’ discovery request. However, in Legato, the responding party held

the exclusive right (under SEC regulations) to command the release of the documents at issue. 

See id. at 170. Here, by contrast, it is not evident that plaintiffs hold the exclusive right to

request the documents from the DOL. LS&Co. says that its FOIA requests have not been

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

fruitful, suggesting that the lack of response from the DOL might be due either to delays, or

perhaps, the DOL’s refusal to produce certain documents. Nevertheless, LS&Co. does not deny

that it also could have secured the documents by subpoena.

The second case cited by LS&Co., United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus.

Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1989), does not support LS&Co.’s position. 

Indeed, in that case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the documents at issue (local union

election records) were not in defendant’s control such that defendant would be required to

produce them in response to a subpoena. Among other things, the Ninth Circuit observed that

the documents were available to the requesting party directly from the local unions. See id. at

1454.

Here, plaintiffs represented to the court at oral argument that they do not have (and

possibly never did have) a complete copy of the DOL’s final summary of Schmidt’s interview. 

Thus, it appears that all copies, versions, and iterations of that summary which they have in

their possession, custody or control have already been produced to LS&Co. Accordingly,

LS&Co.’s motion as to these documents is DENIED.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. LS&Co.’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to (a) plaintiffs’ corrections to the

DOL’s initial interview summaries and (b) plaintiffs’ answers to the DOL investigator’s

questions. Plaintiffs shall produce these documents to LS&Co. within ten days from the date

of this order.

2. LS&Co.’s motion to compel plaintiffs to produce a complete copy of the DOL’s

final summary of Schmidt’s interview is DENIED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 11, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-01026-RMW Document 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

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 

Philip Edward Kay phil@nosexualharassment.com 

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

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

Jeffry W. Lochner jlochner@popelka.com, kanderson@popelka.com; jlochner@verizon.net 

Sheila Marie Pierce sheila.pierce@bingham.com 

Gabriel Neil Rubin grubin@stblaw.com, jlaw@stblaw.com; hlelaind@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 150 Filed 04/11/07 Page 7 of 7