Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07339/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07339-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS FERNANDEZ, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

K-M INDUSTRIES HOLDING CO.,

et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-7339 SBA (BZ) 

AMENDED ORDER FOLLOWING IN

CAMERA REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

Following yesterday’s hearing, the court re-read the

disputed documents in camera. IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The K-M defendants shall produce to plaintiffs the

documents which they voluntarily agreed to produce at

yesterday’s hearing. 

2. The K-M defendants shall also produce to plaintiffs

the following documents:

(1) The portion of document no. 164, part 3, that

begins with the language “Th[sic] Trustee is

requesting” to the end of section 3 and the portion

of section 5 on the last page beginning with the

words “The Trustee has asked whether the company”

through the sentence that ends “distributed to the

participants.”

Case 4:06-cv-07339-CW Document 99 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 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

2

(2) That portion of document no. 203, beginning

with the words “At the same director’s meeting” and

ending with the words “Trustee’s request for

payment of fees” in the next sentence.

3. The court finds that all the other disputed

documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege or

the work product doctrine and are not subject to the

fiduciary exception as articulated in United States v. Mett, 

178 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 1999) and Fischel v. Equitable Life

Insurance, 191 F.R.D. 606 (N.D. Ca. 2000). Nor was there a

waiver when these documents were shared by counsel for the

company and counsel for the Moores, given their common

interest in the subject matter of the documents.

4. Defendants’ Production of Documents in Response to

the Court’s Order shall be filed by the Clerk under seal.

DATED: March 7, 2008

 

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\FERNANDEZ V. K.M.INDUSTRIES\ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

Case 4:06-cv-07339-CW Document 99 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2