Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01201/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01201-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calamco
Counter Defendant
J.R. Simplot Company
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALAMCO,

Plaintiff and 

Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY,

Defendant and 

Counterclaimant.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK

DISCOVERY ORDER RE: 

SIMPLOT’S REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION 

(ECF No. 111)

An informal telephonic discovery conference was held on May 21, 2024 at 

9:00 a.m. regarding Defendant-Counterclaimant J.R. Simplot Company’s Requests for 

Production (RFP) Numbers 6, 10, 46, and 47 to Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant 

Calamco. 5/14/2024 Joint Letter re Discovery Dispute (ECF No. 111).1 Simplot seeks to 

compel Calamco to produce two legal memoranda in response to Simplot’s RFP Nos. 6, 

10, 46, and 47. Jonathan Eldredge appeared on behalf of Calamco, and Shane Smith 

appeared on behalf of Simplot. After the discovery conference, the Court ordered 

Calamco to address whether the two legal memoranda at issue in the discovery dispute 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1).

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 1 of 8
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

were included in Calamco’s privilege log and to submit a copy of its privilege log to the 

Court. (ECF No. 115.) Based on the information submitted and argument presented, the 

Court issues the following order.

A. Simplot RFP Nos. 6, 10, 46, and 47

Simplot served the RFPs at issue (Nos. 6, 10, 46, and 47) on Calamco, and 

Calamco responded as follows:

SIMPLOT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All DOCUMENTS and 

COMMUNICATIONS related to legal opinions provided to CALAMCO on the 

question of whether patronage could be, should be, or was paid on CALAMCO 

shareholder’s purchases of SIMPLOT UAN 32, including opinions of counsel or

other legal memoranda and opinions on which CALAMCO relied in ending 

patronage payments for purchases of SIMPLOT UAN 32.

CALAMCO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: CALAMCO 

objects that the request is vague, overbroad and seeks irrelevant information.

CALAMCO further objects that the request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges.

SIMPLOT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All DOCUMENTS and

COMMUNICATIONS related to legal opinions provided to CALAMCO on the 

question of whether patronage could be, should be, or was paid on CALAMCO 

shareholder’s purchases of NON-SIMPLOT UAN 32, including opinions of 

counsel or other legal memorandum and opinions.

CALAMCO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: CALAMCO 

objects that the request is vague, overbroad and seeks irrelevant information.

CALAMCO further objects that the request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges.

SIMPLOT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: The November 17, 2021 

Memorandum from Jim Morris to Dan Stone, which was previously provided to 

Steven Ducommun on or about December 10, 2021.

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 2 of 8
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

CALAMCO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: CALAMCO 

objects to producing a document already produced to Simplot.

SIMPLOT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: The letter from Ray Carlson 

at Lyman Griswald to Dan Stone, which was previously provided to Steven 

Ducommun on or about December 10, 2021.

CALAMCO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: CALAMCO 

objects to producing a document already produced to Simplot.

(See Attachment 1.)

After meet and confer efforts to resolve the dispute failed, the parties submitted 

their discovery dispute to the Court and an informal discovery teleconference was held. 

(5/14/2024 Joint Letter re Discovery Dispute; see also 4/30/2024 Joint Letter re 

Discovery Dispute (ECF No. 108).)

B. Discussion

The parties clarified during the telephonic conference that the discovery dispute is 

over two Calamco legal memoranda that were prepared by Calamco counsel for 

Calamco in advance of a December 2021 Calamco board of directors’ meeting. 

Critically, both legal memoranda post-date the state court writ and post-date Calamco’s 

production in response to the writ.2 The parties’ state court writ proceedings are 

described in detail in the district court’s October 12, 2022 order denying Calamco’s 

motion to remand and motion to disqualify Perkins Coie. (ECF No. 60.) This order also 

describes the complicated relationship between the parties and their counsel. (See id.)

2 Therefore, the parties’ agreement that all discovery from the state court writ 

proceeding may be used in this federal court case (see 8/8/2023 Joint Report on 

Proposed Discovery Plan at 5 (ECF No. 99)), does not apply here.

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 3 of 8
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

On their face, Simplot RFP Nos. 6 and 10 seek documents that are protected by 

the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege because the requests

explicitly seek legal opinions of Calamco counsel provided to Calamco. RFP Nos. 46 and 

47 request two specific documents from Calamco counsel to Calamco CEO, facially 

seeking documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Calamco does not dispute 

that these two legal memoranda are responsive to Simplot RFP Nos. 6, 10, 46, and 47, 

and instead asserts that the legal memoranda are not subject to disclosure based on the 

attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and that any prior disclosure was 

not an intentional waiver of the privilege. Simplot argues that Calamco waived its 

privilege when Calamco counsel provided these legal memoranda to Simplot’s counsel

and to Calamco Class B Directors.

1. Whether Calamco Waived by Providing Memoranda to Simplot Counsel

While it is undisputed that Calamco counsel did provide these legal memoranda 

to Simplot counsel, that does not resolve the issue. Simplot counsel does not only 

represent Simplot; it also represented Cal Ida (a Simplot subsidiary and shareholder of 

Calamco) and Calamco’s Class B Directors (selected by Cal Ida and also Simplot 

executives). (See 10/12/2022 Order.) After receipt, Simplot’s counsel properly returned 

both legal memoranda to Calamco counsel because the memoranda bore “attorneyclient privilege” stamps. Calamco represented that it then provided these legal 

memoranda directly to its Class B Directors. Unlike its production in response to the 

state court writ3, Calamco only produced these legal memoranda to its Class B 

3 As described in the district court’s October 12, 2022 order, in response to the state 

court writ, Calamco produced its confidential and privileged documents to both its Class 

B Directors and to Cal Ida without distinguishing between the entities. (10/12/2022 

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Directors. Calamco did not also produce these memoranda to Cal Ida or to Simplot. The 

fact that Calamco initially produced these legal memoranda to Simplot counsel does not 

constitute waiver as Simplot’s counsel also represented Calamco’s Class B Directors. In 

addition, Calamco’s conduct made clear that disclosure of these memoranda was

intended to be limited to its Class B Directors because the memoranda were directly 

provided to its Class B Directors, not to Cal Ida or to Simplot. This is particularly 

significant given Calamco’s prior conduct in response to the state court writ where 

Calamco disclosed its confidential and privileged documents to both Cal Ida and 

Calamco’s Class B Directors. (See 10/12/2022 Order at 12-13.) Though Simplot is 

correct that Calamco has previously contended that its Class B Directors are adverse to 

Calamco, in this specific situation, Calamco counsel prepared memoranda for Calamco 

in advance of Calamco board of directors’ meeting. Providing these memoranda to 

Calamco’s Class B Directors does not constitute waiver by Calamco of the attorneyclient privilege, but an exercise of its privilege. Further, Calamco counsel’s disclosure of 

these memoranda to counsel for Simplot did not constitute waiver because counsel for 

Simplot was also counsel for Calamco’s Class B Directors.

2. Calamco’s Response to Simplot RFP Nos. 6 and 10

In its response to Simplot RFP Nos. 6 and 10, Calamco asserted the attorneyclient and attorney work product privileges. (Att. 1.) The Court also reviews Calamco’s 

privilege log to determine whether Calamco waived either privilege by failing to include 

the legal memoranda at issue in its privilege log. Calamco included both legal 

Order at 12-13.) By disclosing its documents to Cal Ida without any protection against 

Cal Ida’s later use, “[i]t is not clear what obligation Cal Ida has to keep Calamco’s 

information in confidence, if any at all.” (Id. at 15.)

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 5 of 8
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

6

memoranda as privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product in 

its privilege log.4 (See ECF No. 116.) Therefore, the Court concludes that Calamco 

asserted both privileges in its response to Simplot RFP Nos. 6 and 10, and preserved 

both privileges by inclusion of both memoranda and identification of both privileges in 

Calamco’s privilege log. 

3. Calamco’s Response to Simplot RFP Nos. 46 and 47

Simplot separately argues that Calamco waived its attorney-client and attorney 

work product privileges because Calamco did not assert either privilege in its response 

to Simplot RFP Nos. 46 and 47. In response to Simplot RFP Nos. 46 and 47, Calamco 

did not assert either privilege and instead, responded that it “objects to producing a 

document already produced to Simplot.” (Att. 1.) Critically, in its response to Simplot 

RFP Nos. 6 and 10, Calamco did assert the attorney-client and attorney work product 

privileges, demonstrating that Calamco separately asserted privileges in response to 

specific RFPs to avoid waiver of the privilege. (Att. 1.)

Calamco argues that its general preliminary objections sufficiently assert attorneyclient privilege in its responses to the RFPs. (See 5/14/2024 Joint Letter re Discovery 

Dispute at 2.) Calamco’s RFP responses also included a “preliminary statement” section 

at the beginning of its responses that included the following general objection: 

“Defendant’s discovery may cover the subject matter of documents reflecting the 

impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research or theories of CALAMCO’s legal 

counsel and consultants employed to prepare for litigation. To the extent that such 

information or the identity or substance of such documents is sought generally by 

4 The parties produced privilege logs on a mutually agreed upon date. (ECF No. 109.)

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Defendant, CALAMCO objects thereto on the ground that such information is protected 

by the work product doctrine, attorney-client, common interest or other privilege.” (Att. 1, 

Calamco Responses to RFP, Prelim. Stmt ¶ 4.) This argument fails because the Ninth 

Circuit has clearly held that boilerplate objections in RFP responses are insufficient to 

assert a privilege. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of

Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court also examined Calamco’s privilege log to determine whether Calamco 

preserved its privileges in response to RFP Nos. 46 and 47. While Calamco included

both legal memoranda as privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work 

product in its privilege log, Calamco did not, however, specify the RFPs to which either

document was being withheld. (ECF No. 116.) As a result, the Court cannot determine 

whether Calamco asserted either privilege in its privilege log in response to RFP Nos. 46 

and 47, and it is reasonable to assume that inclusion of the legal memoranda in its 

privilege log are for the RFPs to which Calamco affirmatively asserted privilege in its 

RFP responses. 

During the discovery conference, Calamco counsel explained that he was not

counsel for Calamco when the legal memoranda were provided to counsel for Simplot 

and the Class B Directors, and that at the time he prepared Calamco’s responses to 

Simplot’s RFPs, he was not aware that the legal memoranda had been returned to 

Calamco. Rule 26 anticipates that a party may learn that its discovery response is 

incomplete or inaccurate by requiring such a party to timely supplement its discovery 

responses to provide additional or corrective information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Because 

fact discovery is still open and based on representations by Calamco’s counsel, pursuant 

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

to Rule 26(e), the Court exercises its discretion to order Calamco to supplement its 

responses to Simplot RFP Nos. 46 and 47 to provide additional or corrective information.

This order is limited to addressing the narrow discovery dispute presented to the 

Court. It does not address whether Simplot may have other grounds for obtaining the two 

legal memoranda at issue. The Court also did not examine in-camera the two legal 

memoranda as the RFPs facially requested attorney-client communications, and the 

issue was not presented as to whether the legal memoranda properly constitute 

privileged attorney-client communications and/or protected attorney work product.

ORDER 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Simplot’s request to compel Calamco to produce 

the two legal memoranda at issue in response to Simplot’s RFP Nos. 6, 10, 46, and 47. 

Within five (5) days of this order, the Court ORDERS Calamco to supplement its 

responses to Simplot RFP Nos. 46 and 47 to provide additional and/or corrective

information as required by Rule 26(e).

Dated: May 28, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-01201-KJM-CSK Document 117 Filed 05/28/24 Page 8 of 8