From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lerma v. Arends

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO
Mar 7, 2012
Case No. 1:11-cv-00536-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-00536-LJO-MJS

03-07-2012

CARLOS M. LERMA, Plaintiff, v. JON LEE ARENDS, an individual, URS FEDERAL SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., a business entity, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendant.

M. Greg Mullanax Attorneys for Plaintiff CARLOS MANUEL LERMA SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Francis J. Ortman Andrea Nicole de Koning Attorneys for Defendant URS FEDERAL SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC. Mark D. Kruthers Matthew T. Besmer Attorneys for Defendant JON LEE ARENDS


LAW OFFICE OF M. GREG MULLANAX

M. Greg Mullanax (SBN 155138)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CARLOS MANUEL LERMA

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Francis J. Ortman, III (SBN 213202)

Andrea Nicole de Koning (SBN 253715)

Attorneys for Defendant

URS FEDERAL SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.

DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC.

Mark D. Kruthers (SBN 179750)

Matthew T. Besmer (SBN 269138)

Attorneys for Defendant

JON LEE ARENDS

STIPULATION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Carlos Manuel Lerma ("Lerma") and Defendants Jon Lee Arends ("Arends") and URS Federal Support Services, Inc. ("URS") (collectively, "Defendants") (collectively, "the Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Defendant URS in this case has continually asserted the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product privilege over the investigation report prepared by Sally Aguilar and Dean Widhalm which was designated by URS's Legal Department as "attorney-client privileged." The Parties hereby acknowledge that this report was prepared in-house at URS by non-attorneys and is a summary of witness interviews conducted in connection to Carlos Lerma's complaint of discrimination. The Parties further jointly acknowledge that although Dean Widhalm and Sally Aguilar may have consulted with the URS Legal Department during the investigation, no privileged communications are included in the investigation report. Therefore, the Parties agree that the investigation report is not privileged. On the other hand, the Parties acknowledge that the URS Legal Department was involved in the preparation of the disposition memorandum. For that reason, the Parties jointly acknowledge that the disposition memorandum is privileged;

WHEREAS, Defendant has carefully reviewed the investigation report and disposition memorandum that were prepared to address Plaintiff's complaint of discrimination. Defendant has gone to great lengths to ensure that the report it intends to produce is not-privileged and reflect the totality of the non-privileged documents that were previously withheld out of a concern that the documents were potentially privileged;

WHEREAS, Defendant does not wish to risk a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege or any other legal privilege through their proposed production;

WHEREAS, the Parties collectively wish to uphold and promote the principles of the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, that Defendant URS shall produce to all other Parties the investigation report that was previously withheld out of a concern they were potentially privileged, concerning Plaintiff's allegations of discrimination. Defendant URS shall further provide a privilege log the same day that the investigation report is produced which will include the disposition memorandum;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, that Defendant URS's production shall not be deemed to have waived of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege or any other legal privilege;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, that Plaintiff shall not file any Motion to Compel the production of any further documents concerning any communications with or work product of the URS Legal Department in connection with Carlos Lerma's allegations, nor shall Plaintiff seek any other Order from the Court requiring the production of any privileged communications or work product whatsoever in this case.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

LAW OFFICE OF M. GREG MULLANAX

By:_________________

M. Greg Mullanax

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CARLOS MANUEL LERMA

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

By: _________________

Francis J. Ortman

Andrea Nicole de Koning

Attorneys for Defendant

URS FEDERAL SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.

DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC.

By: _________________

Mark D. Kruthers

Matthew T. Besmer

Attorneys for Defendant

JON LEE ARENDS

ORDER

The parties having so stipulated, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Defendant URS shall produce to all other Parties the investigation report that was previously withheld out of a concern they were potentially privileged, concerning Plaintiff's allegations of discrimination. Defendant URS shall further provide a privilege log the same day that the investigation report is produced which will include the disposition memorandum;

Defendant URS's production of its investigation report shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege or any other legal privilege;

Plaintiff shall not file any Motion to Compel the production of any further documents concerning any communications with or work product drafted by the URS Legal Department in connection with Carlos Lerma's allegations, nor shall Plaintiff seek any other Order from the Court requiring the production of any privileged communications or work product whatsoever in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Michael J. Seng

U.S. Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Lerma v. Arends

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO
Mar 7, 2012
Case No. 1:11-cv-00536-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Lerma v. Arends

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS M. LERMA, Plaintiff, v. JON LEE ARENDS, an individual, URS FEDERAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO

Date published: Mar 7, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-00536-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)