Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02076/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02076-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 09-cv-2076 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GONZALEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MILLARD MALL SERVICES, INC. ET AL.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09‐CV‐2076‐BTM(WVG)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATEMENT OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

(Doc. No. 42)

On September 9, 2010, the Court convened a Discovery Hearing in the above‐entitled

action. Justian Jusuf appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Brent Giddens appeared on behalf of

Defendants. The Court convened the Hearing to address two disputes: (1) whether attorney client

privilege and attorney work product doctrine protects Defendant’s interviews of putative class

members; and (2) whether Plaintiffs are entitled to discover the Millard entity corporate structure.

The Court entertained the parties’ arguments and ordered further briefing. After a review of the

parties’supplemental briefing and all relevant attachments, the Court findsthat the attorney client

privilege and the work product doctrine do not protect the surrounding facts of Defendants’

interviews with putative classmembers. Discoverable information includesthe location and date of

the interviews; whether witness attendance was mandatory or voluntary; the identity, other than

the interviewees, of those present at the interview; and how many putative class members were

interviewed. However, the Court finds that the identities of the witnesses interviewed are not

Case 3:09-cv-02076-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 5
 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 09-cv-2076 

discoverable, and are protected under the work product doctrine because Defendants’ decision

regarding who to interview may reveal attorney impressions and strategy. The Court finds further

that at this class certification phase, information regarding related Millard entities is both relevant

and discoverable as it may assist Plaintiffs in defining the scope of the class to be certified.

I. Discussion

a.) Attorney Client Privilege

“[T]he EvidenceCode,the attorney‐client privilege appliestoconfidential communications

within the scope of the attorney‐client relationship even if the communication does not relate to

pending litigation;the privilege applies not only tocommunicationsmade inanticipation oflitigation,

but also to legal advice when no litigation isthreatened.” Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363,

371 (1993). For the communication to be privileged where a corporate entity is the client, “the

dominant purposemust be fortransmittaltoanattorney inthe course ofprofessional employment.”

Holm v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.2d 500, 507 (1954) (disapproved on another point in Suezaki v.

Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 166 (1962).)  Documents prepared independently by a party, including

witness statements, do not become privileged communications or work product merely because

they are turned over to counsel. See Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. App.

4th 214 (1996). Here, the Court finds that no attorney client privilege protects the witness

interviews. Defendants interviewed their own employees who may later join this litigation as

plaintiffs. Defendants’ counsel cannot have a privileged communication with putative class

members.

b.) Work Product Doctrine

The work product doctrine, codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), protects

“from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in

anticipation of litigation.” In re Grand Jury Supoena, 357 F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Admiral Ins. Co.V.U.S.Dist. Court, 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir. 1989)).Nevertheless,the protection

afforded by the doctrine is qualified andmay be overcome ifthe party seeking disclosure showsthat

the materials are otherwise discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and that “it

has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship,

Case 3:09-cv-02076-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 5
 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/Rule 26(b)(1) obligateslitigantsto disclose the “identity and location of persons who knowany discoverable

matter.” Although the Court has ruled at this time, in the pre‐certification phase, that the identities of the

individuals who were interviewed are protected attorney work product, defendants are on notice that they

may be required to reveal the identities and location of these same witnesses should this case proceed into

merit based discovery.

3 09-cv-2076 

obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(3)(A)(i),(ii). However,

courts must protect against the disclosure of opinion work product  ‐ “ the mental impressions,

conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attorney or otherrepresentative concerning the

litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(3)(B). “Under Ninth Circuit law, such opinion work product is

discoverable only if it is ‘at issue in the case and the need for the material is compelling.’” SEC v.

Roberts, 254 F.R.D. 371, 375 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

976 F.2d 273, 577 (9th Cir. 1992)).

The Court does not considerthe factssurrounding the witnessinterviewsto be protected

underthework product doctrine. The facts ofwhere,when,whetherthe interviewsweremandatory

for Defendants’ employees, who was present other than the interviewees, and how many putative

class members were interviewed, do not reveal the attorney impressions or strategy regarding the

pending litigation. However, the Court finds that the identities of the interviewees are protected.1/

An investigator's notes ofwitnessinterviews and otherfacets of a litigation‐related investigation are

likely to be permeated with the investigator's own impressions and possibly even attorney theories

or strategy, and are therefore protected from discovery. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508,

67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (work product privilege covers “mental impressions, conclusions,

opinions orlegaltheories”); Upjohn Co. v.United States, 449U.S. 383, 399, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d

584 (1981) (“Forcing an attorney to disclose notes and memoranda of witnesses' oralstatementsis

particularly disfavored because it tends to reveal the attorney's mental processes.”). Even to the

extent such theories and strategy are not expressly written down in the notes, the fact that certain

witnesses were interviewed and then not contacted further tends to reveal strategy. See In re MTI

Tech. Corp. Sec. Litig. II, No. 00‐0745, 2002 WL 32344347, at *3 (C.D.Cal. June 13, 2002) (“[I]f the

identity of interviewed witnesses is disclosed, opposing counsel can infer which witnesses counsel

considersimportant,revealingmental impressions and trialstrategy. Such evaluations, impressions,

and strategy are at the heart of the work product rule.”).

Case 3:09-cv-02076-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 5
 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/The Court declines to address the issue of the Millard Group’s possible status as a joint

employer and liability for labor code violations under California law.

4 09-cv-2076 

II. Discovery Regarding Other Millard Entities

Plaintiffs request discovery regarding related Millard entities so that Plaintiffs may

properly ascertain the size and members of the putative class. Plaintiffs contend that Millard may

be a joint employer under California law, and thusrelatedMillard entitiesmay be liable for California

labor code violations, or alternatively, that a related Millard entity may employ California workers.

While Defendants adamantly assert that all California workers are employed by only Millard Mall.

The Court findsthat Plaintiffs’ inquiry isrelevant at the class certification stage.2/Generally, parties

may obtain discovery regarding any “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense ‐ including the existence [of] ...tangible things and the identity and location of persons who

know of any discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). While Defendants assert that this

request is unreasonable, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs may be prejudiced if denied this

information. Plaintiffs seek to confirm that Millard has no other California employees and

determining the corporate structure of the Millard entities will assist Plaintiffs in properly defining

the class.

III. Plaintiffs’ Request to Further Depose Defendants

Plaintiffsrequestthatthe Court orderfurther depositionsso that Plaintiffsmay collectthe

information they seek regarding the factual details of the witness interviews and the Millard

corporate structure.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) providesthat although depositions are

typically limited to one day ofseven hours, a “court must allow additional time consistent with Rule

26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other

circumstance impedes or delaysthe examination.” See also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) (“A party

must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule

26(b)(2): (A) if the parties have notstipulated to the deposition and: ... (ii) the deponent has already

been deposed in the case....”).Here, Plaintiffs have shown thatthey needadditionaltime to examine

Defendants. The deposition transcriptsmake clearthat Defendant’s counsel not only “impede[d] or

delay[ed] the examination” but terminated specific lines of questioning by improperly instructing

Case 3:09-cv-02076-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 09/22/10 Page 4 of 5
 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/

An attorneymay instruct a witness notto answer at deposition in orderto preserve a privilege orto enforce

a limitation ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). The attorney does so at his and his client’s peril

if the Court finds that the privilege objection is invalid. Here, the Court has determined and Defendant has

conceded that no attorney client privilege exists. The work product doctrine is not an evidentiary privilege

but rather a limitation on discovery. Metzler Contracting Co., LLC v. Stephens, 642 F.Supp.2d 1192, 1204 (D.

Haw. 2009); see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 246, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“[T]he

‘workproduct’doctrine [operates]solely as a limitation on pretrial discovery andnot as aqualified evidentiary

privilege.”)This Court did not address any limitation on discovery prior to the depositions at issue here.

5 09-cv-2076 

the witness not to answer on grounds that the questions exceeded the noticed Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition topics and privilege.3/Nonetheless, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that depositionsrather

than interrogatories are appropriate. Under Rule 26(b)(2), a “Court must limit the frequency or

extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the

discovery ... can be obtained from some othersource that is more convenient ... or less expensive.”

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(2).  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs may draft interrogatories to

elicitthe information regarding relatedMillard entities, andmay conduct an additional Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition by telephone or video conference to inquire aboutthewitnessinterviews. The deposition

may not exceed one hour.

DATED:  September 22, 2010

    Hon. William V. Gallo

    U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02076-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 09/22/10 Page 5 of 5