Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-06278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation, Magistrate Judge Illman denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel unredacted payroll documents, finding CVS’s attorney-client privilege applied.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ request for unredacted documents and CVS’s assertion of attorney-client privilege over the redacted information.
What happened
In Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation, the plaintiffs asked the court to require CVS to remove redactions from documents sent to a third-party payroll administrator.
CVS argued that the redacted material contained confidential legal advice and that sharing it with the payroll administrator was reasonably necessary to carry out that advice. The plaintiffs argued that CVS had not shown the required attorney-client relationship or attorney involvement and that the documents appeared to be routine business paperwork.
The court relied on CVS’s representations that the redactions contained legal advice or strategy and that sharing the information was reasonably necessary. The court therefore found that attorney-client privilege applied and denied the motion to compel. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Bert M. Illman.
The detailed version
- Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation · No. 4:18-cv-06278
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 8, 2020
Background
The order addressed a discovery dispute. Plaintiffs sought to compel CVS to lift redactions in documents that CVS had sent to a third-party agent responsible for administering CVS’s payroll systems.
Parties’ Positions
CVS argued that the redactions were protected by the attorney-client privilege because they contained legal advice from CVS’s counsel directing changes to CVS’s payroll systems. CVS also argued that it was necessary to communicate that advice to the payroll administrator so the advice could be understood and implemented.
Plaintiffs argued that CVS had not shown an attorney-client relationship between CVS and the payroll administrator. They also argued that there was no evidence that an attorney participated in creating or distributing the documents and that the documents appeared to be routine paperwork about a system change.
Court’s Analysis
The court focused on whether the redacted material contained legal advice or legal strategy from CVS’s counsel and whether it was reasonably necessary to share that advice with the third-party payroll administrator. CVS’s counsel represented in its written submission and at oral argument that both conditions were satisfied. Based on those representations, the court found that the attorney-client privilege applied.
Disposition
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the redacted information. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Bert M. Illman.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.