Sanimax USA, LLC v. City of South St. Paul.
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:20-cv-01210
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Sanimax v. City of South St. Paul, Judge Nelson sustained the City’s objections, modified the discovery order, and denied Sanimax’s request for items 76 and 77.
The ruling affected Sanimax and the City of South St. Paul in their discovery dispute. The City was permitted to maintain its privilege claim over the communications identified as privilege-log items 76 and 77, and Sanimax could not compel production of those documents under this order.
What happened
In Sanimax, LLC v. City of South St. Paul, Sanimax sued the City over constitutional claims and an inverse-condemnation claim arising from a zoning amendment affecting its facility. During discovery, Sanimax asked the City to produce documents the City withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.
A magistrate judge had found that the City waived attorney-client privilege for two email chains because Ryan Schroeder, an independent contractor, received them. The City objected, arguing that Schroeder was serving as the functional equivalent of a City employee and was appropriately included in communications about odor-mitigation planning. Sanimax did not respond to the objections.
Judge Nelson sustained the City’s objections and modified the magistrate judge’s order. She found that Schroeder was sufficiently connected to the City’s odor-mitigation work to be treated as the functional equivalent of a City employee, so including him did not waive the privilege. The court denied Sanimax’s motion to compel as to privilege-log items 76 and 77.
The detailed version
- Sanimax USA, LLC v. City of South St. Paul. · No. 0:20-cv-01210
- Ann Montgomery
- Dec. 6, 2021
Background
Sanimax operates an animal-rendering facility in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The City previously designated Sanimax a significant odor generator under a municipal nuisance ordinance. After Sanimax challenged that ordinance, the City removed the designation and modified the ordinance. The City later adopted a zoning amendment that Sanimax alleges affected its facility by making its use a legal nonconforming use.
Sanimax brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting due-process and equal-protection violations, along with an inverse-condemnation claim. During discovery, Sanimax sought communications involving the City, its attorney, and others. The City withheld some documents based on attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
Earlier Discovery Ruling and Objections
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowen Wright reviewed selected documents in private and issued an order that granted in part and denied in part Sanimax’s motion to compel. Applying the principle that attorney-client privilege can cover communications with an independent contractor who acts as the functional equivalent of an employee, she found that communications involving the City’s contractor, Short-Elliott Hendrickson, Inc., could be privileged.
For two email chains identified as privilege-log items 76 and 77, Magistrate Judge Wright found that the emails involved the City Attorney’s legal representation of the City. She nevertheless concluded that the City had waived the privilege by sending the emails to Ryan Schroeder, whom she treated as an outside third party. The City objected to that part of the order and submitted additional information about Schroeder’s role. Sanimax did not respond to the objections.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and the local rules, the district court must set aside portions of a magistrate judge’s order that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. An order is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the record, the court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake occurred. An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies governing statutes, cases, or procedural rules.
Analysis
Judge Nelson agreed that items 76 and 77 concerned legal issues and the City Attorney’s representation of the City. The court therefore found that the emails were privileged unless the City waived that protection by including Schroeder.
The court applied the same functional-equivalent analysis used for independent contractors in earlier privilege cases. Schroeder had been hired temporarily to manage the City’s new Economic Development Division and to mentor the person eventually selected as Economic Development Manager. His duties included attending project and staff meetings and presenting project updates and recommendations to the City Council and the Economic Development Division.
The emails were sent about one week after Schroeder’s hiring and concerned a meeting with Sanimax about preparing an odor-mitigation plan. The court found that the City and Schroeder were sufficiently connected regarding odor-mitigation issues that Schroeder, in his role as the interim Economic Development Authority’s Project Manager, was the functional equivalent of a City employee. His inclusion therefore did not waive the attorney-client privilege.
Disposition
The court held that Magistrate Judge Wright had lacked the additional information about Schroeder that the City later provided. It sustained the City of South St. Paul’s objections, modified Magistrate Judge Wright’s October 18, 2021 order on a limited basis, and denied Sanimax’s motion to compel as to privilege-log items 76 and 77.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.