Singh, et al v. Sacramento County, et al
Filing
92
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/15/2011 granting in part 70 73 74 75 and 76 Motions to Compel Discovery; defendants' counsel shall confer with plaintiff's counsel and redact those portions of the meeting minu tes that he thinks are appropriately subject to the attorney-client privilege; if counsel cannot agree as to which portions of the minutes should be redacted pursuant to that privilege, they shall file a notice with the court that includes the redacted minutes and the parties' respective positions. (Waggoner, D)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
ESTATE OF BALJIT SINGH, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV 2:09-cv-1439-JAM-JFM
9
vs.
10
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
11
Defendants.
ORDER
12
/
13
On November 10, 2011, the court held a discovery conference on plaintiffs’
14
pending discovery motions. See Doc. Nos. 70, 73-76. Stewart Katz and Guy Danilowitz
15
appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Defense counsel Robert Tyler, Jennifer Marquez and Jesse
16
Rivera were also present. Upon review of the motions, discussion with counsel and good cause
17
appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
18
On September 29, 2011, plaintiffs filed six motions to compel responses to
19
subpoenas for production of documents. The subpoenas were mailed to U.C. Davis Medical
20
Center and defendants County of Sacramento1, Paul Hendricks, Gregory Sokolov, Michael
21
Tompkins and Robert Hales. At issue are the production of the minutes of a meeting held on
22
July 10, 2008 during which decedent’s suicide was allegedly discussed. Defendants object to
23
plaintiffs’ request on grounds of the “peer review” privilege, the work-product doctrine and the
24
attorney-client privilege.
25
26
1
On November 3, 2011, plaintiffs withdrew their motion as to County of Sacramento.
1
1
In light of Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2005),
2
defendants concede that the minutes of the July 10, 2008 meeting are not protected from
3
disclosure by California Evidence Code § 1157 under the “self-critical analysis” or “peer
4
review” privilege. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.
5
6
7
Insofar as defendants rely on the work-product doctrine to object to the
production of the meeting minutes, this doctrine is inapplicable.
Lastly, defendants assert that the meeting minutes are protected by the attorney-
8
client privilege. They state that counsel’s presence at the meeting renders the minutes
9
privileged. Upon review of the joint discovery statement and discussion of counsel, the court
10
find that the privilege applies only to those portions of the minutes wherein counsel gave legal
11
advice. As to the remaining portions of the minutes, the attorney-client privilege does not apply
12
and those portions are discoverable.
13
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions to
14
compel (Doc. Nos. 70, 73-76) are partially granted. Robert Tyler (counsel for defendants Hales,
15
Hendricks, Sokolov and Tompkins) shall confer with plaintiffs’ counsel and redact those
16
portions of the meeting minutes that he thinks are appropriately subject to the attorney-client
17
privilege. If counsel cannot agree as to which portions of the minutes should be redacted
18
pursuant to that privilege, they shall file a notice with the court that includes the redacted
19
minutes and the parties’ respective positions.
20
DATED: November 15, 2011.
21
22
23
24
/014;sing1439.disc2
25
26
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
