Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 KRISTEN SILLOWAY, et al., Case No. 20-cv-07400-RS (AGT) 6 Plaintiffs, , y. DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 56 8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ? Defendant.

11 The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ joint discovery letter at Dkt. 56. Plaintiffs’ || request for an order compelling CCSF to do the following—to produce privileged documents || reflecting legal advice CCSF received concerning its FLSA compliance, to answer plaintiffs’ || interrogatories regarding CCSF’s good faith affirmative defense, and to reopen the Rule 30(b)(6) 15 || deposition of Steve Ponder to allow further inquiry as to “any attorney advice related to || compliance with the FLSA” (see id. at 1)—is denied. While CCSF has asserted a good faith 17 || affirmative defense against plaintiffs’ FLSA claim, it has not “affirmatively put the content of || privileged communications or advice behind its claim of good faith” as required to find implied || waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 2019 WL 6252499, at *16 20 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019); see McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Sav. Bank, FSB, 2015 WL 502697, 21 at *9 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015) (“Although defendant argues that it classified plaintiffs as exempt in || good faith, it does not allege that it relied upon the advice of counsel in making its good faith || determination. Defendant must support its good faith defense by citing the advice of counsel in || order to put it in issue.”). Plaintiffs’ unsupported claims to the contrary are rejected.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: January 27, 2022 28 .TSE United States Magistrate Judge