Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/134/378/561922/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:53:20+00:00

Document:
Shirley Johnson appeals pro se the judgment on a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Johnson's employment discrimination action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 2000e, and state tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Johnson's contention that the district court erred when it allowed Johnson's former attorney, John Patterson, to testify at deposition and trial about confidential communications lacks merit. We review de novo whether Johnson waived the attorney client privilege. See Tennenbaum v. Deloitte & Touche, 77 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir. 1996). First, Johnson raised claims which in fairness required disclosure of the communications, and second, she disclosed during discovery communications with Patterson without invoking the privilege. Accordingly, the district court did not err by determining that Johnson failed to carry her burden of proof that she did not waive the privilege. See Chevron Corp v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1992); Weil v. Investment/Indicators, 647 F.2d 18, 23-25 (9th Cir. 1981).
To analyze Johnson's remaining contentions regarding the trial and jury verdict, we would need to review the trial transcripts. Because Johnson has failed to produce the transcripts, we dismiss these claims.1 See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) (2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
Finally, we decline to award defendants attorney's fees and costs on appeal. See Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1402 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

References: § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.