Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00669-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESERIE CRAVALHO, )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MERCED CITY SCHOOL ) 

DISTRICT, )

 et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0669 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 36)

Plaintiff Deserie Cravalho (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to compel further

responses to request for production of documents on May 22, 2006. The motion was heard on

June 23, 2006, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Stephen

Rand appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Jeffrey Olson appeared on behalf of Defendants Merced

City School District (“District”), Robert Frausto and Leon Cope.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this civil rights complaint on May 23, 2005, against the District, Stephen

Mendyk, Robert Frausto and Leon Cope (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s allegations arise

out of her employment with the District. She alleges claims for: (1) Discrimination based on

race; (2) Sexual harassment; and (3) Retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and racial

discrimination. On August 12, 2005, plaintiff dismissed defendant Mendyk from this action.

Case 1:05-cv-00669-DLB Document 46 Filed 07/03/06 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on May 22, 2006, and seeks to compel further

responses to her first set of requests for production of documents served on January 5, 2006. 

Defendant filed an opposition on June 13, 2006 and plaintiff filed a reply on June 14, 2006. The

parties did not file a Joint Statement in accordance with Local Rule 37-251.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment by management employees

of the District, including the individually named Defendants. She also alleges that the Defendants

discriminated against her based on her race. She alleges the District then retaliated against her for

complaining about the discrimination and harassment.

Defendants deny the allegation in the Complaint that allege any wrongdoing and have

raised appropriate affirmative defenses. Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by her

Complaint, that the Complaint be dismissed, that Defendants recover their reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs of suit incurred.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of

any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter .

. . . The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. 

Confidential communications made by a client to an attorney to obtain legal services are

protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391,

403, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1577 (1976); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129

(9 Cir. 1992); United States v. Hirsch, 803 F.2d 493, 496 (9 Cir. 1986). The privilege’s central th th

concern is “to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and

thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.”

United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S.Ct. at 2625 (1989) (quoting Upjohn Co. v.

United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677 (1981)). “A party seeking to withhold discovery

Case 1:05-cv-00669-DLB Document 46 Filed 07/03/06 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

27

28

3

based upon the attorney-client privilege must prove that all of the communications it seeks to

protect were made ‘primarily for the purpose of generating legal advice.” Griffith v. Davis, 161

F.R.D. 687, 697 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting McCaugherty v. Siffermann, 132 F.R.D. 234, 238

(N.D. Cal. 1990)).

“The attorney work product doctrine protects from discovery materials prepared by an

attorney in anticipation of litigation.” United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 494 (N.D. Cal.

2003) citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947). The privilege is

intended to preserve the privacy of attorneys’ thought processes, and to prevent unnecessary

intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Id. The Supreme Court has held that the work

product doctrine applies to documents created by investigators working for attorneys, provided

the documents were created in anticipation of litigation. United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225,

239, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). 

DISCUSSION

The parties have divided the requests at issue into two categories: (1) non-privileged

documents; and (2) privileged documents. With respect to the non-privileged category, the

parties informed the court at the beginning of the hearing that these requests had been resolved

and that defendants had supplemented their responses.

With respect to the privileged documents, at issue are Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 5 and 9 to

defendants Frausto and Cope; and Request Nos. 4, 5, 10 and 15 to the District. 

Plaintiff represents that Defendants produced some of the discovery responsive to the

above requests on May 17, 2006. Plaintiff states that based on the documents provided, it

appears there were significant complaints about her which are contained in certain withheld

interviews of District employees Pam Silva and Pam Roberts. Defendants have refused to

produce the documents related to an investigation of sexual harassment involving Plaintiff,

claiming that the documents are protected by the attorney client privilege because an attorney,

Stephen A. Mendyk, conducted the investigation, citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S.

Case 1:05-cv-00669-DLB Document 46 Filed 07/03/06 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

27

28

Pursuant to Upjohn, the attorney client privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder is or sought to

1

become a client; (2) the person to whom th eocmmunicaiton was made is (a) a member of the bar; and (b) in

connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the

attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing either (i)

an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding and not (d) for the purpose of

committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.

4

383 (1981). Defendants represent that the “documents” at issue are (1) transcribed statements;

1

(2) recorded statements; and (3) attorney notes.

The recorded and transcribed statements of the District employees, insofar as they relate

to Plaintiff or her claims in this action, are relevant and therefore discoverable. The documents

are not protected by the attorney client privilege because the employees were not seeking legal

advice from the District’s attorney. The attorney was merely performing a factual investigation

on behalf of the District. These items must therefore be produced. The attorneys’ conclusions

and notes, however, are protected by the attorney work product doctrine and need not be

produced by the District.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 3, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00669-DLB Document 46 Filed 07/03/06 Page 4 of 4