Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01734/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01734-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eloisa Burlingame
Plaintiff
County of Calaveras
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELOISA BURLINGAME, )

 )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv1734 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO QUASH NOTICES OF TAKING

DEPOSITIONS AND SUBPOENAS FOR

RECORDS IN PART

(Document 18)

Defendant County of Calavaras (“County”) filed the instant motion to quash notices of

taking depositions and subpoenas for records on May 25, 2007. The matter was heard on July 6,

2007, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. David De-Ben

Cheng appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Eloisa Burlingame (“Plaintiff”) and Michael Woods

appeared on behalf of County.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant action for damages against County on October 27, 2006,

asserting claims for discrimination and harassment on the basis of both gender and race; failure

to prevent said discrimination and harassment; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress; and negligent supervision. The discrimination and harassment claims are brought

pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (hereinafter "Title VII") and California Government

Code §12900 et seq. (hereinafter the "Fair Employment and Housing Act" or "FEHA"). The

Case 1:06-cv-01734-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 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

2

remainder of the claims arise under California law. All of Plaintiff's claims are predicated on

alleged severe and pervasive discrimination and harassment she experienced while working at

the County's landfill. Among other things, Plaintiff claims she was constantly a) belittled,

denigrated, disparaged or ignored by other employees and her superiors; b) denied the

opportunity to learn to operate equipment; c) not considered for promotion or expansion of her

responsibilities; d) exposed to pornography throughout the workplace; e) forced to endure

offensive sexual and/or racial jokes and slurs; and f) threatened and/or assaulted, all due to her

gender and race. As a result, Plaintiff alleges she became extremely uncomfortable at work,

found it increasingly difficult to perform her job responsibilities, and eventually was disabled due

to extreme anxiety or panic and severe depression.

Plaintiff initially filed a discrimination/harassment complaint form with County on

January 30, 2006. The investigation was undertaken at County’s request by attorney Julie A.

Gonzales of Palmer & Kazanjian, LLP. County contends an independent investigation by an

outside attorney was initiated by Human Resources Director Francine Osborn because of the

breadth of the complaint and the likelihood of future litigation. This litigation followed.

Plaintiff served two separate notices of depositions on the custodian of records for Palmer

& Kazanjian, LLP, each with an attached Subpoena in a Civil Case. The first Notice with

attached Subpoena was served on April 26, 2007, setting the deposition for May 29, 2007. The

Subpoena was directed to Julie A. Gonzales. The second Notice with attached Subpoena was

served on May 1, 2007, setting the deposition for June 7, 2007. The Subpoena is directed to the

Custodian of Records for Palmer & Kazanjian LLP. Both deposition notices are for records only

and do not require a personal appearance. Both Notices seek the same documents for inspection,

namely the investigation report prepared by Ms. Gonzales, as well as all supporting investigative

materials. County contends the investigative report and all related documentation were prepared

on behalf of County in anticipation of litigation and are therefore work product, privileged and

confidential trial preparation materials. Plaintiff argues the workplace investigation was not

performed in anticipation of litigation and Ms. Gonzales was not acting as County’s counsel

Case 1:06-cv-01734-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 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

3

when she performed the investigation and therefore the documents are not protected or

privileged.

DISCUSSION

The “work product” doctrine protects trial preparation materials that reveal an attorney’s

strategy, intended lines of proof, evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Hickman v. Taylor,

329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) provides:

[A] party may obtain discovery documents and tangible things otherwise

discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of

litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s

representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor

, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has

substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party’s case and that the

party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the

materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the

required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the

mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of the attorney or

other representative of a party concerning the litigation. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947).

The work product doctrine provides qualified, not absolute, protection which, like other 

qualified privileges, may be waived. United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239-40(1975).

“The work product doctrine protects from discovery materials prepared by an attorney in

anticipation of litigation.” United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 494 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. at 511. The privilege is intended to preserve the privacy of

attorneys’ thought processes, and to prevent unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their

counsel. Id “ The Supreme Court has held that the work product doctrine applies to documents

created by investigators working for attorneys, provided the documents were created in

anticipation of litigation. United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d

141 (1975). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that "to qualify for protection against discovery under Rule

26(b)(3), documents must have two characteristics: (1) they must be 'prepared in anticipation of

litigation or for trial,' and (2) they must be prepared 'by or for another party or by or for that other

party's representative.' " United States v. Torf, 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9 Cir. 2003) quoting In re th

Case 1:06-cv-01734-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 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

4

California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 892 F.2d 778, 780- 81 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(3)). 

In United States v. Torf, 357 F.3d 900, 907, the Ninth Circuit also addressed the question

whether protection under the work product doctrine may be extended to “dual purpose”

documents (i.e., documents to assist a business decision that also involves pending or prospective

litigation) and held that a document should be deemed prepared "in anticipation of litigation" and

thus eligible for work product protection under Rule 26(b)(3) if "in light of the nature of the

document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can be fairly said to have

been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation." United States v. Torf, 357 F.3d

900, 907 citing Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, 8 Federal

Practice & Procedure § 2024 (2d ed. 1994) ("Wright & Miller"). The court noted that the

"because of" standard does not consider whether litigation was a primary or secondary motive

behind the creation of a document. Id. Rather, it considers the totality of the circumstances and

affords protection when it can fairly be said that the "document was created because of

anticipated litigation, and would not have been created in substantially similar form but for the

prospect of that litigation[.]" Id. The Supreme Court has held that the work product doctrine

applies to documents created by investigators working for attorneys, provided the documents

were created in anticipation of litigation. United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239, 95 S.Ct.

2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). 

Attorney Gonzales was hired by County for the purpose of securing an independent

investigation. Declaration of Francine Osborn, ¶ 3. County sought an outside investigator, with

experience in employment law matters, to conduct the investigation, rather than having the case

investigated internally, in part because County anticipated the matter would end up in litigation. 

Id. Thus, the investigative report prepared for the County by an attorney in anticipation of

litigation is protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Because the report reflects Ms.

Gonzales’ mental impressions, conclusions, legal theories and/or legal theories, it is entitled to

greater protection. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 399 (1981). The Court finds no

waiver by County’s written disposition of the complaint and even if there was a waiver, the

Case 1:06-cv-01734-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 4 of 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

5

waver would not extend to the mental impression, conclusion or opinions of the attorney. See

Walker v. County of Contra Costa, 227 F.R.D. 529, 535 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

Nevertheless, the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable

matter are discoverable as are the underlying factual information included in the report. See Rule

26(b)(1). These various matters are not protected as work product. Where, as here, a document

includes both the attorneys’ mental impressions and legal theories, as well as discoverable

information, disclosure may be ordered with portions deleted. See Adv. Comm. Notes to 1970

Amendment to FRCP 26(b)(3).

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, County’s motion to quash notices of taking depositions and

subpoenas for records is GRANTED IN PART. Within 20 days of this Order, County shall

produce the report and all documents included in the report, redacting Ms. Gonzales’ mental

impressions, conclusions and/or opinions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 7, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01734-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 5 of 5