Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher R. Harris
Plaintiff
San Jose Mercury News, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5262 CRB (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF E-MAIL

(Docket No. 244)

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce two e-mails which Defendant

asserts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. These two e-mails were reviewed in camera. 

The Court heard argument on May 10, 2006.

These e-mails consist of communications from an editor to other staff with a copy going to

in- house counsel. One consists of a string of e-mails pertaining to a meeting to discuss, among

other things, photo policies with in-house counsel. The other is an e-mail from editor Mark Damon

to staff (with a copy to in-house counsel Andy Huntington) that discusses the instant suit, retention

and collection of records in connection therewith, and policy and procedures related to scanning.

The Court concludes these e-mails are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Even in the

absence of an express directive or heading designating confidentiality, the corporate intent of

keeping a communication confidential may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the

communication. Cf. In re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d 94, 102 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Although they are not

expressly labeled “confidential,” it was clear to the recipients that the e-mails in question concerned

the instant litigation and the need to gather records in connection with the litigation. There is no

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 260 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

indication that the documents were shared with anyone outside the Defendant’s staff. The e-mails

thus appear to constitute confidential internal communications to which in-house counsel was a

party relating to the rendering and obtaining of legal advice in the context of the instant lawsuit. See

Fischel v. Magolis, 557 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir. 1977). They are therefore privileged. 

As to Plaintiff’s assertion of waiver, there was not a sufficient disclosure of the content of the

documents to constitute a waiver. Although Defendant’s staff testified in deposition about the new

policy that scanning of photographs would go through the photo department and that they learned of

the policy through an e-mail (presumably one of the e-mails which is the subject of this motion), no

other detail about the communication or its content was disclosed. In reviewing the subject e-mail in

camera, it is evident the e-mail contained a significant amount of other content not disclosed by

deposition testimony.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 260 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2