Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01480/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01480-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WRI GOLDEN STATE, LLC, No. C-07-01480 MMC (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER [Docket No. 19]

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Defendant, Save Mart Supermarkets (hereinafter “Defendant”), filed a motion for protective

order (the “Motion”) [Document No. 19] against Plaintiff. All of the issues raised by the motion

were resolved between the parties except for the attorney-client privilege issues decided by this

Order. Accordingly, except as described below, the Motion is DENIED as moot.

The motion came on for hearing on Friday, March 14, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. John D. Fairbrook

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff; Daniel Muller appeared on behalf of Defendant. For the reasons

stated on the record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. An attorney-client relationship existed and continues to exist between Defendant and

attorney William Kopper with respect to Defendant’s lease and with respect to advice

on the lawsuit styled Citizens Against Wal-Mart, et al. v. City of Santa Rosa, et al.,

Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV239961, and related

issues. Accordingly, all communications between Defendant and Mr. Kopper on

these issues are privileged and protected from disclosure.

2. Communications between consultant James Watts on behalf of Defendant and

attorney Kopper on the subjects described in Paragraph 1 are also protected by the

attorney-client privilege and are protected from disclosure.

Case 3:07-cv-01480-MMC Document 49 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2
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

3. Consulting agreements between Defendant and Mr. Watt, payments by Defendant to

Mr. Watt, and payments by Defendant of fees in the Citizens suit, are not privileged,

and are not protected by the attorney work product doctrine.

4. Communications between Defendant and Mr. Kopper on the subjects described above

do not lose their privileged character by disclosure of such communication to the

plaintiffs in the Citizens suit. Similarly, communications between the plaintiffs in the

Citizens suit and their counsel Mr. Kopper on the subjects described above do not

lose their privileged character by disclosure to Defendant in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2007 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01480-MMC Document 49 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2