Shirazi v. Oweis
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-00136
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Shirazi v. Oweis, Judge DeMarchi postponed deciding a deposition-privilege dispute and ordered more evidence.
Plaintiff’s counsel and the clients identified as Dr. Medina, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Nisi were permitted to provide additional evidence; defendants’ deposition questioning about the meeting remained unresolved.
What happened
In Shirazi v. Oweis, the parties asked the court to decide whether defendants’ lawyer could question witnesses about a two-hour meeting involving plaintiff’s lawyer and several non-party fact witnesses. Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that all communications during the meeting were protected by attorney-client privilege; defendants disputed that claim.
The court said it did not have enough information to decide whether the witnesses were joint clients or whether the meeting communications were confidential. It allowed plaintiff’s lawyer and/or Dr. Medina, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Nisi to submit declarations or other evidence about the purpose and timing of each representation, who attended the meeting, what was discussed, confidentiality expectations, and whether everyone’s presence was necessary to obtain legal advice.
The additional submissions were due September 28, 2022, and the court said it might hold an evidentiary hearing, privately if necessary. The interim order did not resolve the privilege dispute. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the order.
The detailed version
- Shirazi v. Oweis · No. 5:21-cv-00136
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 15, 2022
Background
The parties asked the court to resolve an expedited discovery dispute about deposition questioning. Defendants’ counsel wanted to ask about a two-hour meeting that plaintiff’s counsel held with multiple clients who are non-party fact witnesses in the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that all communications during the meeting were protected by the attorney-client privilege, which generally protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.
Defendants questioned whether the non-party fact witnesses were “joint clients” of plaintiff’s counsel. They also argued that the presence of people outside each person’s attorney-client relationship with plaintiff’s counsel defeated any privilege claim as to that person.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that it did not have enough information to resolve the dispute. The court noted that its expedited discovery-dispute process does not allow formal motion practice and limits the evidence and other materials the parties may submit.
The court therefore permitted plaintiff’s counsel and/or Dr. Medina, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Nisi to submit declarations or other evidence, including material for private court review if appropriate. The requested information included:
- the purpose of plaintiff’s counsel’s representation of each client; - when each representation began; - everyone present at the meeting and each person’s role; - what allegedly privileged communications occurred and who participated in them; - the basis for each client’s expectation that the communications would remain confidential; and - whether the presence of other clients or non-clients was necessary to obtain or provide legal advice.
The court cited authorities discussing factors relevant to whether people may be treated as joint clients and distinguishing joint-client privilege from common-interest privilege.
Order
The court ordered that the further submissions be filed by September 28, 2022. After reviewing them, the court said it might conduct an evidentiary hearing, privately if necessary. The order did not decide whether the communications were privileged or whether the witnesses were joint clients.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.