Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 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

ENIKO PRAKASH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PULSENT CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-7592 SC (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING SUN LIFE’S

MOTION TO COMPEL IN PART

Before the court is Sun Life’s Motion To Compel the

Prakashes to turn over the Pulsent Settlement Agreement and a

note that Mr. Prakash showed Mr. Ahuja during the latter’s

deposition and to compel further testimony with respect to

those documents. Having read all of the submitted papers, the

court finds no need for argument. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the motion is GRANTED as follows:

1. The Prakashes shall direct the Townsend firm to

produce Item No. 4 of its privilege log which appears to be

the disputed Settlement Agreement. If it is not clear that it

is the final agreement, then the most final draft shall be

produced. All information which may contain trade secrets or

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 144 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 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

2

proprietary information may be abstracted. The only relevance

of the document is to see whether at the time of the

settlement Mrs. Prakash was claiming damages for lost earnings

or was receiving an amount in settlement of such a claim. 

Redactions should be made with that in mind. In the event the

Settlement Agreement contains a confidentiality provision, the

redacted Settlement Agreement shall be produced to Sun Life

under an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” protective order. If it is

not clear from the terms of the Settlement Agreement whether

Mrs. Prakash made any claim for lost earnings or whether the

settlement included an amount for such a claim, Sun Life is

given leave to redepose Mrs. Prakash briefly on this narrow

issue only. This testimony shall be taken under seal and

produced to Sun Life under an “Attorney’s Eyes Only”

protective order, again assuming that the Settlement Agreement

contains a confidentiality provision.

2. The note that Mr. Prakash showed to Mr. Ahuja shall

be produced. Given the particular circumstances of this case

and without offering any view on whether the information in

the note is admissible, the court has concluded that the note

should be produced in discovery to satisfy Sun Life’s concern

that Mr. Prakash may have been trying to influence the

witness’ testimony. While counsel for Prakash asserts that

the note contained privileged communications between him and

Mr. Prakash, counsel does not satisfactorily reply to Sun

Life’s argument that the privilege was waived when Mr. Prakash

showed the document to Mr. Ahuja outside the presence of

counsel. There is no support in the record for any contention

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 144 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 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

3

that disclosure of the privileged communication to Mr. Ahuja

was necessary to further the interests that gave rise to the

privileged communication in the first place. If after

reviewing the communication Sun Life believes that further

questioning of Mr. Ahuja is warranted, it shall seek leave

from the court.

3. Production of documents required by the this Order

shall occur by March 14, 2008. Except as so granted, the

motion is DENIED. 

Dated: March 6, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\PRAKASH V. PULSENT\DISC5.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 144 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 3