Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-07400
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Seeborg denied plaintiffs’ requests for privileged FLSA advice, interrogatory answers, and a reopened deposition.
Kristen Silloway and the other plaintiffs, and the City and County of San Francisco, because the court denied the plaintiffs’ requests for additional discovery concerning privileged legal advice, the City’s good-faith defense, and a deposition.
What happened
In Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco, the plaintiffs asked the court to compel the City and County of San Francisco to provide additional discovery related to their Fair Labor Standards Act claim.
The plaintiffs sought privileged documents about legal advice concerning the City’s compliance with that law, answers to interrogatories about the City’s good-faith defense, and a reopened deposition of Steve Ponder about attorney advice on compliance. The court rejected those requests because the City had not placed the content of privileged communications or legal advice at issue.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The order did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claim.
The detailed version
- Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:20-cv-07400
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 27, 2022
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ joint discovery letter. The plaintiffs had a claim against the City and County of San Francisco under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain employment-related matters. The City asserted a good-faith affirmative defense, meaning it argued that its conduct met the law’s good-faith standard.
Discovery Requests
The plaintiffs asked the court to compel the City to:
- Produce privileged documents reflecting legal advice the City received about complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act;
- Answer interrogatories concerning the City’s good-faith affirmative defense; and
- Reopen the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Steve Ponder to permit further questions about attorney advice related to compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ruling
The court denied the requests. It concluded that asserting a good-faith defense did not, by itself, waive the attorney-client privilege. The court explained that the City had not placed the contents of privileged communications or legal advice at issue as part of its defense. The court therefore did not compel production of the privileged documents, additional interrogatory answers, or the reopened deposition.
This discovery order addressed the parties’ discovery dispute; it did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.