Opinion
CV 20-10713-MWF (RAOx)
03-17-2022
Jane Doe v. Daniel S. Fitzgerald
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER RE: RELEASE OF AUDIO EXHIBITS A-C [157]
On December 16, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Docket No. 122). In support of his Reply brief, Defendant included the Declaration of Jane Roe with five attachments, labeled Exhibits A - E.
Defendant moved under Local Rule 79-5 to seal Exhibits D and E but did not move to seal Exhibits A - C (the “Application” (Docket No. 133)). As a basis for the Application, Defendant asserted that Exhibits D and E identified Jane Doe No. 2, and this Court previously ordered that Jane Doe No. 2 may proceed under a pseudonym. (Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order (Docket No. 67)). Plaintiffs did not oppose the Application.
Unlike Exhibits D and E, Exhibits A - C were lodged with the Court because the Exhibits are media files that contain audio recordings. The Court received a public request to release Exhibits A - C, but before doing so, the Court invited the parties to file a joint statement to advise the Court whether a party objects to the audio recordings being publicly available. (Docket No. 154).
In the joint statement, the parties agree that Exhibits A - C are each recordings of phone calls initiated by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, but the parties dispute the nature of the conversations and with whom exactly Doe No. 2 was speaking on the calls. (Docket No. 157). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Doe No. 2 was speaking with an attorney in each recording. Therefore, it is Plaintiffs' position that the communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege and Exhibits A - C should be sealed. Defendant contends that none of the calls were privileged, either because the privilege was waived or because Doe No. 2 was not speaking with a lawyer.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by March 23, 2022, why Exhibits A - C are privileged communications that should be sealed. This includes positively identifying any speakers on the phone calls and properly defining the spousal relationship with Jane Roe, if applicable. Plaintiffs' response should not address whether the recordings could possibly identify Doe No. 2 in violation of the Court's protective order. If needed, the Court will address that issue after determining whether the communications are privileged.
Defendant may file an optional Reply by March 30, 2022.
Exhibits A - C will be temporarily sealed until the Court determines whether the communications are privileged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.