Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01963/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01963-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BROOKE NOBLE, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW 

Plaintiff initiated this action on December 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1) A First Amended 

Complaint was filed on October 15, 2015. (ECF No. 25.) After a ruling on the Defendants’ 

motions to strike and/or dismiss on July 5, 2016, three claims remain against Defendant Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). (ECF No. 86.) Specifically, this case is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress claims against Wells Fargo. (Id.)

The Court held a hearing on the motions to compel on January 12, 2017. (ECF No. 

110.) Plaintiff's counsel Lenore Albert and Defendant's counsel Kamran Javandel 

telephonically appeared on behalf of their clients. (Id.) For the reasons stated on the record and 

in a follow-up order issued January 7, 2016 (ECF Nos. 111-12), the motions to compel (ECF 

Nos. 107, 019) were granted, in part, and denied, in part.

In Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and as further explained in a letter submitted with the 

Case 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG Document 112 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 6
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

motion and at oral argument, Plaintiff challenged defendant's withholding of certain documents 

and portions of documents on the ground of attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff asserted that 

Wells Fargo redacted numerous documents but failed to produce a privilege log. Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) requires a party claiming privilege to: (i) expressly make the claim; 

and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced 

or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or 

protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Wells Fargo 

conceded that it did not produce a privilege log despite its assertions of privilege in its 

redactions. 

The Court ordered Wells Fargo to produce a privilege log by January 27, 2017. (ECF 

No. 112.) Plaintiff also raised a concern that Wells Fargo may be over-redacting the 

documents it produced. Plaintiff specifically challenged an email chain from approximately the 

time of the eviction in question. Plaintiff noted clear omissions including names of people in 

communication. Plaintiff requested the basis of redactions in one particular email. Defense 

counsel represented that the communication reflected attorney client privileged 

communications between a business person and an attorney named Jan. 

At the motion hearing, the Court directed Wells Fargo to submit a document at issue 

(WF811-861) for in camera review.1 The Court has completed its in camera review and makes 

the following findings.

A. Legal Standards

Because this case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s state law claims, the issue of privilege in 

this litigation is a question of the state law of California. See Fed. R. Evid. 501 (providing that 

“state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule 

of decision.”); see also Kandel v. Brother Int'l Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1081 (C.D. Cal. 

 

1 The Court notes that it received two sets of redacted documents in camera: 1) “showing redacted text”, 

and 2) “redacted.” It appeared that there was additional information redacted in the “redacted” file that was not 

shown as redacted in the “showing redacted text” file. The Court is basing its rulings on the “showing redacted 

text” file. The additional information contained in the “redacted” file should be disclosed to the extent it was not 

previously disclosed.

Case 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG Document 112 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 6
3

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

2010) (“In a federal action such as this based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, state law 

governs attorney-client privilege claims.”) (citations omitted). 

Under the California attorney-client privilege, parties are entitled to withhold a 

confidential communication “between a client and his or her attorney made in the course of an 

attorney-client relationship.” Palmer v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1224, 180 Cal. 

Rptr. 3d 620, 627 (Cal. 2d Dist. 2014) (citations omitted). California law defines a 

“confidential communication between client and lawyer” as:

[I]nformation transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of 

that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is 

aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are 

present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom 

disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the 

accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes a 

legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that 

relationship.

Cal. Evid. Code § 952. “The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication 

between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of 

whether it includes unprivileged material.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. 

4th 725, 734, 219 P.3d 736, 741 (Cal. 2009) (explaining that “[n]either the statutes articulating 

the attorney-client privilege nor the cases which have interpreted it make any differentiation 

between ‘factual’ and ‘legal’ information”).

“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts 

necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client 

relationship.” Costco, 47 Cal. 4th at 733, 219 P.3d at 741 (citations omitted). “Once that party 

establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is 

presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the 

burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does 

not for other reasons apply.” Id.

Evidentiary privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege, “should be narrowly 

construed because they prevent the admission of relevant and otherwise admissible evidence.” 

Case 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG Document 112 Filed 01/18/17 Page 3 of 6
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

McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1236, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 

817 (Cal. 1st Dist. 2004) (citations omitted). The attorney-client privilege does not apply 

merely because an attorney communicates with his client. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. 

Superior Court, 153 Cal. App. 3d 467, 475, 200 Cal. Rptr. 471, 476 (Cal. 1st Dist. 1984). 

“Knowledge which is not otherwise privileged does not become so merely by being 

communicated to an attorney.” Costco, 47 Cal. 4th at 735, 219 P.3d at 742. The attorney-client 

privilege does not attach to communications where “the client's dominant purpose in retaining 

the attorney was something other than the request for a legal opinion or advice,” such as where 

the attorney was acting as a negotiator for the client or merely providing business advice. See 

Aetna, 153 Cal. App. 3d at 475, 200 Cal. Rptr. at 476.

The California work product doctrine codified in section 2018 “provides a privilege for 

matter prepared in anticipation of litigation.” Dowden v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 4th 126, 

129, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 180, 182 (Cal. 4th Dist. 1999) (citation omitted). The work product 

doctrine “absolutely protects from discovery writings that contain an ‘attorney's impressions, 

conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.’” Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal. 

4th 807, 814, 171 P.3d 1092, 1097 (Cal. 2007) (citations omitted). Work product protection 

extends to documents prepared by non-attorneys at the attorney’s direction if the documents 

contain the attorney’s thoughts and impressions. See id. Work product is not discoverable 

“unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking 

discovery in preparing that party's claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” Id. (quoting 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030).

B. Application to WF811-861

As an initial matter, the Court takes issue with the fact that defense counsel 

misrepresented the status of one of the persons on the communication at issue. At oral 

argument, defense counsel represented that "Jan" (i.e. Janet L. Branch) was a lawyer. Ms. 

Branch is not a lawyer-she is a paralegal. This is a critical distinction for the purposes of 

Case 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG Document 112 Filed 01/18/17 Page 4 of 6
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

attorney client privilege.2 The attorneys involved in the communications are: Kenneth A. 

Franklin, Johnathan Collins, Gene Wu, Mark T. Flewelling, and Michael B. Goldberg.

3

 

With the above framework in mind, the Court makes the following rulings regarding 

Wells Fargo’s redactions:

1. WF813

Redaction(s) sustained. Attorney work product.

2. WF814

Redaction(s) overruled. The redacted material is general in subject matter and does not 

disclose the content of the advice. Although the elimination of the redaction would reveal the 

topic of a question posed to legal counsel, the Court finds that it is merely a description of the 

nature of the communication, similar to what would be provided in a privilege log. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Thus, the information is not protected.

3. WF826-827

Redaction(s) overruled. The communications are between non-attorneys and are not 

passing along the advice of other attorneys, nor made in the provision of legal advice from an 

attorney. The remainder is ministerial and does not describe any attorney-client 

communication. 

4. WF828

Redaction(s) sustained, in part, and overruled, in part. In the communication dated 

September 25, 2013 3:35 p.m., the first paragraph describes a business meeting and business 

decision resulting from that meeting. It does not describe any communications made for the 

 

2

It is acknowledged that, although communications between a paralegal (or other legal staff) and the 

client are technically not privileged, such a communication may be privileged when the purpose of the 

communication is in furtherance the provision of a legal opinion or legal advice. See Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Superior 

Court, 108 Cal. App. 3d 758, 765, 166 Cal. Rptr. 880, 884 (Cal. 2d Dist. 1980) (“While involvement of an 

unnecessary third person in attorney-client communications destroys confidentiality, involvement of third persons 

to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary to further the purpose of the legal consultation preserves 

confidentiality of communication.”). Thus, a disclosure reasonably necessary to accomplish the corporate client's 

purpose in consulting counsel is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. Id. That said, there is 

still a material difference under the law between communications with an attorney and a paralegal.

3 Counsel for Wells Fargo provided this information in camera at the request of the Court to aid its 

analysis.

Case 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG Document 112 Filed 01/18/17 Page 5 of 6
6

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

purpose of legal advice or the content of any legal advice. While this communication as a 

whole arguably combines business and legal purposes, the Court finds that the first paragraph 

should be disclosed consistent with the guide to narrowly construe the privilege. That said, 

Defendant may redact the phrase in the first line of that paragraph, from the seventh word to the 

sixteenth word.

The redactions are sustained as to the remainder of the redacted text.

5. WF829-836

Redaction(s) sustained.

6. WF849

Redaction(s) sustained.

7. WF858-59

Redaction(s) sustained.

8. WF860

Redaction(s) sustained.

C. Conclusion

Wells Fargo is ordered to modify its redactions consistent with this order and produce 

the modified documents to Plaintiff within 14 days. In light of the guidance provided in this 

order, counsel for Wells Fargo is advised to re-examine its previous redactions and make any 

necessary modifications. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG Document 112 Filed 01/18/17 Page 6 of 6