Nathu v. City Of Oakland

Background

The plaintiffs, described in the opinion as hotel developers, challenged Oakland’s denial of their application to build a hotel. The Oakland Planning Commission initially approved a conditional-use permit, but a labor union appealed. The City Council ultimately granted the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately considered the hotel’s effects on housing, public transportation, and social services under Oakland Planning Code § 17.103.050(A)(2).

The plaintiffs then sued, seeking a California-law writ of mandate to allow construction and damages under several federal constitutional theories. The operative complaint included equal-protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a municipal-liability claim, requests for declaratory relief, a Fifth Amendment takings claim, and a due-process claim.

Discovery Dispute

The City served a deposition notice seeking testimony from the person most knowledgeable about “RAM Hotels,” along with nonprivileged documents, concerning four subjects: economic analyses presented to the City Council; the economic analysis in the PowerPoint presentation; quantitative assessments of compliance with Oakland Planning Code § 17.103.050(A)(2); and qualitative assessments of that compliance.

The PowerPoint presentation included figures about approximately $42.7 million in hotel construction costs, expected property taxes, and the community benefits and burdens associated with the hotel. The City said the information was relevant to the plaintiffs’ damages claims and to whether the plaintiffs complied with the planning-code requirement.

The plaintiffs moved to quash the discovery, arguing that it sought attorney-client communications and attorney work product. The opinion explains that “RAM Hotels” was not a plaintiff and that the case materials referred instead to Mandela Hotel, Ram Hotels, and a partnership called II Ram. The court said the parties could work out which person was most knowledgeable about the noticed factual issues for the deposition.

Court’s Analysis

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from a professional legal adviser. The party claiming the privilege must establish each required element. The court noted that the privilege does not protect ordinary business information merely because attorneys were involved.

The work-product doctrine protects documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation. The party asserting that protection bears the burden of showing that it applies. The court also noted that underlying facts are different from communications about those facts, and that publicly disclosed information may lose protection.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown why the economic figures were privileged or protected work product. The figures did not appear to have been created to seek legal advice or communicated confidentially. They had been disclosed publicly in the presentation to the City Council, and the economic information was business information rather than legal advice.

The court also found that the City sought the underlying facts—not counsel’s legal theories, reasons for the presentation, or counsel’s testimony. The City limited its requests to information about construction costs, property taxes, and the economic analysis concerning the hotel’s effects on Oakland. The court determined that the information was relevant and discoverable both on the merits and concerning damages.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to quash and allowed the City’s narrowed discovery. The plaintiffs were required to produce deponents able to address the factual issues identified in the discovery request. The City stated that it did not seek privileged or work-product information and did not seek to depose the plaintiffs’ counsel. The order resolved ECF No. 70.