Bruce v. Angel D. Garcia

Background

Defendants Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District and City of Hercules sought two categories of documents from plaintiff Jack Francis Bruce: communications about the incident between Bruce and people other than his lawyers, including his parents, under Request for Production No. 1; and employment records from one year before the incident through the present under Request for Production No. 7. Bruce opposed both requests. The court stated that the discovery order addressed only the requests at issue in docket entry 86.

Communications with Bruce’s Parents

Bruce produced screenshots of text messages with his parents but redacted portions based on attorney-client privilege. He argued that his father, John Bruce, acted as Bruce’s agent and as an agent of Bruce’s counsel.

The court rejected that argument. A party claiming attorney-client privilege must first show that the privilege applies. The court found that Bruce had not shown when he retained counsel in relation to when the messages were created, and therefore had not shown that his father was acting at counsel’s direction. The court also found that Bruce had not shown that his father was providing services for him during the communications; a family relationship alone was not enough to establish an agency relationship.

The court further noted that a party withholding information under a privilege claim must expressly make the claim and describe the withheld information sufficiently for the other parties to evaluate the claim without revealing privileged information. The court could not determine from the dispute whether Bruce had provided a sufficient privilege log. It ordered Bruce to provide the communications between himself and his parents to the defendants without redactions.

Employment Records

The defendants argued that Bruce’s employment records were relevant to his claims for economic loss and loss of reputation, whether he discussed the incident with an employer, and whether he experienced discipline, reprimand, demotion, layoff, or termination relevant to his emotional-distress claim.

Bruce argued that he was not claiming lost earnings and was asserting only ordinary, or “garden variety,” emotional distress. He proposed limiting the request to records from one year before the incident through the present concerning discipline, reprimand, demotion, layoff, or termination.

The court found the records relevant. It reasoned that Bruce’s claim for $10 million in non-economic damages was inconsistent with describing his emotional-distress claim as only garden variety. The court also found that the employment records could show whether Bruce sought workplace accommodations or whether the events in the complaint affected his work performance. Because Bruce claimed loss of reputation, the court found that his reputation was at issue as well. The court noted that a protective order was already in place to address privacy concerns.

Ruling

Judge Alex Gy Tse ordered Bruce to respond to Request for Production No. 7 by producing employment documents from one year before the incident through the date of the order. The court also ordered Bruce to provide the communications with his parents without redactions. The order terminated docket entry 86.