Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00707-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:7604 Clear Air Act (Emission Standards)

---

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

ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED )

RESIDENTS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

FRED SCHAKEL DAIRY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-00707-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFF’S

EXPERTS DR. DAVID B. PARKER AND

WILLIAM POWERS (Doc. 273)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

The motion of Defendants to compel production of documents

withheld by Plaintiff’s experts Dr. David B. Parker and William

Powers came on regularly for hearing on June 13, 2008, at 9:30

a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United

States Magistrate Judge. Brent Newell appeared on behalf of

Plaintiff, and Charles M. Tebbutt appeared telephonically for

Plaintiff; David Douglas Doyle and Lee N. Smith appeared for

Defendants. After argument, the matter was submitted to the

Court.

Defendants’ motion, with supporting points and authorities

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 350 Filed 06/23/08 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

and the supporting declaration of Lee N. Smith, was filed on

March 21, 2008. 

Before the motion was filed, the Court participated in

informal teleconferences with counsel regarding the underlying

discovery dispute, which concerned whether or not work product

protection warranted Plaintiff’s refusal to disclose to

Defendants ten e-mails between Plaintiff’s counsel and experts

David Parker and/or William Powers, which had been requested by

Defendants in the notice of deposition of those experts held on

February 20 and 28, 2008, respectively. In the course of

informally handling the discovery dispute, the Court reviewed

correspondence form the parties and requested counsel for AIR to

submit to the Court for in camera inspection the documents that

Plaintiff argued were protected. Plaintiff submitted the

documents to the Court on or about February 25, 2008; Defendant

requested on or about May 9, 2008, that the Court review them in

advance of the motion hearing. The Court thus reviewed and

considered the documents submitted in camera before hearing

argument on the motion on June 13, 2008.

Plaintiff objected to disclosure of the documents on the

basis of the work product protection, which finds its legal basis

in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and cases such as Hickman v. Taylor,

329 U.S. 495 (1947). Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

976 F.2d 573, 576-77 (9 Cir. 1992). The protection exempts from th

disclosure in various circumstances materials prepared in

anticipation of litigation, and in most circumstances an

attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal

theories.

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 350 Filed 06/23/08 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) requires that reports be

prepared for each testifying expert containing, among other

things, the data or other information considered by the expert

witness in forming the opinions. The Advisory Committee Notes to

the 1993 Amendment indicate expressly that in light of this

obligation to disclose all things considered by the witness in

forming the opinions, litigants should no longer be able to argue

that material furnished to their experts to be used in forming

their opinions--whether or not ultimately relied upon by the

expert--are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure

when such persons are testifying or being deposed. II Epstein,

The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product Doctrine, pp.

995-96 (5 Ed. 2007) (Epstein). The majority view, and the better th

view according to Epstein, is that all things communicated to the

expert and considered by the expert in forming an opinion must be

disclosed even if it constitutes opinion otherwise protected as

work product. Although there is no binding authority from the

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, federal courts have

adopted the majority view. See, United States v. City of

Torrance, 163 F.R.D. 590, 593 (C.D.Cal. 1995); Baxter

Diagnostics, Inc. v. AVL Scientific Corp., 1993 WL 360674

(C.D.Cal. Aug. 6, 1993); and Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, 139

F.R.D. 384, 386 n. 1 (N.D.Cal. 1991).

The Court agrees that the majority view correctly reflects

the rule’s clear policy supporting full cross-examination of the

entire process of formation of an opinion.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the following items

listed on the Plaintiff’s Privilege Log, Volume VII, are

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 350 Filed 06/23/08 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

4

discoverable, in their entirety, as things communicated to and

considered by the experts in reaching their opinions: number 10

(e-mail string of September 14, 2007); number 9 (e-mail string of

September 17, 2007); items 6, 7, and 8 (three e-mails of October

24, 2007); items 4 and 5 (e-mails of December 17, 2007); number 3

(e-mail of January 19, 2008); and number 2 (e-mail of January 25,

2008). The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to these items.

However, Defendant’s motion IS DENIED with respect to item

number 1 on the privilege log, an e-mail of January 27, 2008,

because the item is not the type of matter that is considered by

an expert in forming an opinion. The Court thus concludes that it

was not considered by either expert in forming his opinion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to disclose these matters

immediately to Defendants.

Because the documents submitted for review by the Court were

few in number, the Court will shred the documents after the

passage of twenty days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 350 Filed 06/23/08 Page 4 of 4