Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST 

ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENTS 

LISTED ON DEFENDANTS GREGORY 

VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P. AND VPI, 

INC.'S PRIVILEGE LOG

Re: ECF No. 221

The Court has reviewed the documents lodged with the Court on or about May 12, 2015 

and now rules as follows regarding the character of each. 

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Gregory Village frequently designates as covered by the 

attorney-client privilege documents, such as communications between Mary Haber and third 

parties, that are protected by the attorney work product doctrine but not by the attorney-client 

privilege. “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 Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Envtl. Mgmt.), 357 

F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States District Court, 881 F.2d 

1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989)). Notwithstanding the misdesignation, the Court has noted the 

existence of work product protection where it applies, and made its decisions accordingly. 

The Court sustains Gregory Village’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege as to the 

following documents: Document Nos. 294 (GV012363); 299 (GV012384-85); 319 (GV012601-

05); and 871 (GV022801). 

The Court finds that the following documents are protected by the attorney work product 

doctrine: Document Nos. 871 (GV022802-03); 873 (GV022813); 922 (GV022912); 1037 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 227 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(GV024755-24761); 1055 (GV024840-41); and 1060 (GV024858-62). 

Document No. 40 (GV004767-68)

This is an e-mail regarding cash flow from one Gregory Village officer or employee to 

another. Ms. Haber is a “cc” recipient. There is no request for legal advice, and none is provided. 

This document is not privileged and must be produced. 

Document No. 68 (GV005895)

Ordinarily, communications between Mary Haber and Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. would be 

subject to the attorney work product doctrine, because it seems reasonably clear that EKI was 

engaged to assist Ms. Haber and Gregory Village in preparing for this litigation and the 

administrative proceedings before the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-San 

Francisco Bay Region. However, communications with, and documents produced by, Erler & 

Kalinowski, Inc. (“EKI”) are no longer protected because EKI professional engineer Steven G. 

Miller has provided written testimony in this case. ECF No. 213 (Miller Decl.); United States v. 

Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975) (“Respondent, by electing to present the investigator as a 

witness, waived the privilege with respect to matters covered in his testimony.”); Republic of 

Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 870 n.4 (9th Cir. 2014) (“any ordinary work product

protection . . . would typically be waived where the materials are disclosed to a testifying

expert”). Accordingly, this document is no longer protected by the attorney work product doctrine 

and must be produced. 

Document No. 195 (GV007738-39)

These e-mails relate to a non-privileged communication with a third party and do not 

contain legal advice. Ms. Haber is acting in a purely business capacity. This document is not

privileged and must be produced. 

Document No. 310 (GV012530)

This document appears to relate to the same subject matter as Document No. 195. This 

document is not privileged and must be produced. 

Document No. 399 (GV014166-72)

For the reasons discussed in connection with Document No. 68, this document was at one 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 227 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

time protected by the attorney work product doctrine, but is no longer protected and must be 

produced. 

Document No. 483 (GV015974)

For the reasons discussed in connection with Document No. 68, this document was at one 

time protected by the attorney-client privilege, but is no longer privileged and must be produced. 

Document No. 561 (GV017570-73)

For the reasons discussed in connection with Document No. 68, this document was at one 

time protected by the attorney work product doctrine, but is no longer protected and must be 

produced. 

Document No. 606 (GV018641)

For the reasons discussed in connection with Document No. 68, this document was at one 

time protected by the attorney work product doctrine, but is no longer protected and must be 

produced. 

Document No. 866 (GV022790)

For the reasons discussed in connection with Document No. 68, this document was at one 

time protected by the attorney work product doctrine, but is no longer protected and must be 

produced. 

Document No. 867 (GV022791)

For the reasons discussed in connection with Document No. 40, this document is not 

privileged and must be produced. 

The Court now concludes that any further discovery disputes between the parties, 

including the privileged or work product nature of Gregory Village’s documents, “cannot be 

effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district,”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, and that the appointment of a special master is appropriate. Id. The costs of 

the special master will be borne entirely by Gregory Village, subject to future reallocation upon a 

showing of good cause. The foregoing allocation of costs is a sanction for Gregory Village’s noncompliance with the Court’s prior orders, as set forth in the Order dated April 27, 2015. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding, and file, not later than June 5, 2015, 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 227 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a stipulated order of appointment pursuant to Rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

identifying a mutually acceptable special master and containing all of the terms required by Rule 

53(b)(2). If the parties are unable to agree on the identity of a special master, they shall 

nonetheless attempt to agree to the extent possible on the terms of an order of appointment. If the

parties are unable to agree on either the identity of a special master or the terms of an order of 

appointment, they are ordered to file competing proposals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 227 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 4