Evans Hotels, LLC, et al. v. Unite Here! Local 30, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 23, 2026
• Docket: 3:18-cv-02763
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVANS HOTELS, LLC, et al., Case No.: 3:18-cv-02763-RSH-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER RESOLVING JOINT MOTIONS FOR DETERMINATION 13 v. OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES 14 UNITE HERE! LOCAL 30, et al., REGARDING:

15 Defendants. (1) DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS OF 16 PRIVILEGE [ECF No. 242],

17 (2) PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OF 18 PRIVILEGE [ECF No. 244], and

19 (3) THIRD-PARTY SEAWORLD, 20 LLC’S CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE [ECF Nos. 246, 254] 21 22 Before the Court are three joint motions relating to claims of privilege by Plaintiffs, 23 Defendants, and third-party SeaWorld, LLC. ECF Nos. 242, 244, 246.1 Having considered 24

25 1 Due to administrative filing errors, third-party SeaWorld filed its motion a second time. 26 See ECF No. 246 (filed in person, due to technological difficulties); ECF No. 254 (filed 27 electronically pursuant to proper protocol). The Court appreciates that SeaWorld corrected its filing errors by filing electronically. See ECF Nos. 250, 252. As this motion is a 28 1 the parties’ arguments, the applicable legal authority, and the documents submitted for 2 in camera review, (see ECF Nos. 243, 245, 251, 257), the Court ORDERS as follows. 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 The first seven years of litigation in this case was a slow crawl through pleading 5 disputes. These disputes focused primarily on Defendants’ contention that the Noerr- 6 Pennington doctrine precluded Plaintiffs’ claims because they targeted political activity 7 and speech protected by the First Amendment. E.g., ECF Nos. 15, 79, 143. Several district 8 judges agreed with Defendants, dismissing all or most of Plaintiffs’ complaint on those 9 grounds. E.g., ECF No. 60 (Hayes, J.); ECF No. 75 (Robinson, J.); ECF No. 156 (Huie, J.). 10 On January 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 11 dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ claims, except for a secondary boycott claim based on third- 12 party SeaWorld’s cancellation of a joint venture with Plaintiffs. Evans Hotels, LLC v. Unite 13 Here! Loc. 30, No. 23-55692, 2025 WL 17120, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025). Following 14 remand, Defendants filed a motion to strike several allegations from the Third Amended 15 Complaint to align it with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. ECF No. 168. The undersigned 16 issued a Report and Recommendation granting the motion to strike, which Judge Huie 17 adopted over Plaintiffs’ objections. ECF Nos. 200, 206. Consistent with Judge Huie’s 18 order, Plaintiffs filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint on January 25, 2026, 19 asserting a single claim for Unlawful Secondary Boycott relating to SeaWorld. ECF 20 No. 222 at ¶¶ 79–81. 21 Defendants answered the Fourth Amended Complaint on January 26, 2026. ECF Nos. 22 224, 225. Thus, the long pleading odyssey came to an end and the parties embarked on a 23 new journey: discovery. Discovery has proceeded, by comparison, at a much faster pace. 24 To the parties’ credit, they have managed to work through several disputes and are nearing 25 completion of the discovery phase. The current disputes, however, present issues of 26 privilege that are not amenable to compromise. 27 Plaintiffs, Defendants, and a third party, SeaWorld, therefore ask the Court to resolve 28 their claims of privilege and work product protection. Defendants contend that 48 1 documents they have withheld and identified on a log should not be produced because they 2 are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ remaining claim, or are otherwise privileged under the First 3 Amendment. ECF No. 242. Plaintiffs contend that eleven documents they have withheld 4 and identified on a log should not be produced because they are protected from disclosure 5 by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. ECF No. 244.2 SeaWorld 6 contends that two documents it has withheld should not be produced because they are 7 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. ECF No. 246. The Court finds it 8 most efficient to address all of these contentions in a single order. 9 II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 10 The Court applies federal and statutory common law to the parties’ disputes, since 11 Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants is based on a federal statute. United States v. Ruehle, 12 583 F.3d 600, 608 (9th Cir. 2009). The following standards govern the Court’s resolution 13 of the disputes.3 14 A. The Scope of Discovery 15 The scope of permissible discovery is dictated by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure, which permits parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 17 that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” 18 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). In considering relevance and proportionality, the Court looks to 19 “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 20 21 22 2 The Joint Motion regarding Plaintiffs’ privilege assertions only requested in camera 23 review of ten documents. The Court agreed at a discovery conference on June 18, 2026, however, to review an additional disputed document that Plaintiffs lodged with the Court 24 by email. ECF No. 257. 25 3 Defendants also assert a privilege against discovery rooted in the First Amendment. The 26 Court need not reach this assertion because, for the reasons explained herein, the Court will not compel production of documents that relate solely to the Bahia redevelopment and not 27 to SeaWorld because they are neither relevant nor proportional under FED. R. CIV. 28 P. 26(b)(1). 1 relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 2 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 3 discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 4 A party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of demonstrating that it is relevant 5 and proportional. Doe v. Trump, 329 F.R.D. 262, 270 (W.D. Wash. 2018). “The court has 6 broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Id. at 270. A party 7 asserting a privilege or protection from discovery has the burden of demonstrating that the 8 privilege or protection is applicable. United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 9 2d 1065, 1076, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 10 B. Attorney-Client Privilege 11 Application of the attorney-client privilege turns on the presence of eight elements: 12 “(1) [w]here legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his 13 capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence 14 (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by 15 himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.” United States v. Graf, 16 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 17 1068, 1071 n.2. (9th Cir. 1992)). 18 The purpose of the attorney-client privilege “is to encourage full and frank 19 communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public 20 interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” Upjohn Co. v. United 21 States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). In serving this purpose, the privilege protects only 22 communications – disclosures of fact are not protected. Id. at 395. In addition, “[t]he fact 23 that a person is a lawyer does not make all communications with that person privileged.” 24 United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts strictly construe the 25 privilege “[b]ecause it impedes full and free discovery of the truth.” Id. (quoting Weil v. 26 Inv. Indicators, Rsch. & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 24 (9th Cir. 1981)). 27 / / 28 / / 1 C. Work Product Doctrine 2 The work product doctrine is set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), which provides that 3 “a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation 4 of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other 5 party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).” A document is prepared 6 “in anticipation of litigation” if “in light of the nature of the document and the factual 7 situation in the particular case, the document can be fairly said to have been prepared or 8 obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf), 9 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9th Cir. 2004). There is an exception to this protection when a party 10 demonstrates “substantial need for the materials” and that it “cannot, without undue 11 hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” Id. 12 III. DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY DEFENDANTS 13 Defendants withheld 48 documents from their production on the grounds that they are 14 privileged under the First Amendment, and neither relevant nor proportional to Plaintiffs’ 15 case. The documents largely relate to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ proposed Bahia 16 redevelopment. 17 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants waived any relevance objections by agreeing to 18 produce “all non-privileged, responsive documents.” ECF No. 242 at 9. Plaintiffs attached 19 Defendants’ discovery responses as Exhibit D to their joint motion as evidence of waiver. 20 ECF No. 242-4. These responses demonstrate, however, that Defendants did object to 21 several requests on relevance grounds. Request for Production No. 1 seeks “All 22 DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS related to PLAINTIFFS during the 23 RELEVANT PERIOD.” Id. at 5.4 Defendants objected to this request on the grounds that 24 it “seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense nor 25

26 27 4 Due to discrepancies between original and imprinted page numbers, page numbers for docketed materials cited in this Order refer to those imprinted by the court’s electronic case 28 1 proportional to the needs of the case, … .” Id. All of the documents that Defendants are 2 currently withholding are responsive to this request. Defendants also objected on relevance 3 grounds to other requests that are implicated by the withheld documents here. E.g., Id. at 4 19 (Request No. 24 for documents concerning Bill Evans); Id. at 22 (Request No. 31 for 5 agreements concerning the Bahia); Id. at 24 (Request No. 34 for documents regarding 6 coordinated strategies concerning the Bahia); Id. at 25–26 (Request No. 37 for documents 7 related to any labor disputes with the Bahia); Id. at 26 (Request No. 38, which is duplicative 8 of Request No. 37). Plaintiffs’ waiver argument has no merit.5 9 Even if Defendants’ objections were somehow deficient, the Court must examine 10 whether the documents that Defendants have withheld are relevant and proportional as a 11 precursor to compelling their production. See NEI v. The Travelers Home & Marine Ins. 12 Co., 326 F.R.D. 652, 656 (D. Mont. 2018); In Re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 13 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016).; FED R. CIV. P. 26, Advisory Comm. Notes for 2015 14 Amends. (following the 2015 amendment to Rule 26, “the parties and the court have a 15 collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in 16 resolving discovery disputes”). It remains Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate that the 17 information they seek is relevant as a threshold to obtaining an order to compel its 18 production. Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 678 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming denial 19 of motion to compel because there was no showing that the documents listed on the 20 privilege log at issue were relevant); Owen v. Hyundai Motor Am., 344 F.R.D. 531, 535 21 (E.D. Cal. 2023). 22 Plaintiffs have not met this burden here. As Plaintiffs have acknowledged, the 23 elements of Plaintiffs’ claim for secondary boycott are: 24 25

26 5 Similarly, Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants should be compelled to produce 27 information because it would be subject to a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) 28 request has no merit. Rule 26, not the CPRA, governs the scope of discovery in this case. 1 (1) Defendants engaged “in conduct that threatens, coerces, or restrains any person 2 (here SeaWorld);” and 3 (2) Defendants’ object was to “force or require that person (SeaWorld) to cease or 4 refrain from doing any business with another person (Plaintiffs).” 5 ECF No. 189-1 at 1. Both of these elements require a nexus with SeaWorld: a threat 6 directed at SeaWorld, with the object to get SeaWorld to stop doing business with 7 Plaintiffs. As detailed below, none of the documents Defendants have withheld even 8 mention SeaWorld. They are focused on the Mission Bay Master Plan and the proposed 9 redevelopment of the Bahia property. Pressuring Plaintiffs to unionize the Bahia may have 10 been Defendants’ “primary objective,” but evidence of Defendants’ “primary objective” 11 that has no connection to SeaWorld is, at best, marginally relevant – but still not 12 proportional. In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. at 566 (declining to 13 compel production of information that is “only marginally relevant.”). 14 Plaintiffs are correct that the undersigned’s prior Report and Recommendation on 15 Defendants’ motion to strike was not a ruling on the scope of discovery. Such a ruling 16 would have been premature and out of bounds given the Court’s task in considering a 17 motion to strike. Now that the scope of discovery is appropriately before the Court, 18 however, the Court cannot ignore that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion defined the scope of the 19 litigation and also, therefore, the scope of discovery. The Ninth Circuit expressly found 20 that “[t]he Noerr-Pennington doctrine shields [Defendants] from statutory liability for their 21 efforts to oppose the [Bahia] lease amendment before the Mayor of San Diego and the San 22 Diego City Council … [and] for their threats to raise administrative and legal challenges 23 to the Bahia redevelopment.” Evans Hotels, LLC, 2025 WL 17120, at *1. It would be an 24 abuse of discretion for this Court to find, as Plaintiffs ask here, that even though the Ninth 25 Circuit held that Defendants are constitutionally protected from liability for their activities 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 opposing the Bahia redevelopment, evidence of those activities – without any nexus to 2 SeaWorld – is within the scope of discovery.6 3 Following the legal standard and principles discussed herein, the Court finds as 4 follows with respect to each document withheld by Defendants. 5 UNITE-PRIV-0446 6 This document is a draft letter from Defendants’ counsel regarding the proposed 7 elimination of Gleason Road that is marked “Confidential Attorney-Client 8 Communications and Attorney Work Product.” It does not mention SeaWorld. The Court 9 finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional, would be protected by the attorney-client 10 privilege and work product doctrine even if relevant and proportional, and need not be 11 produced. 12 UNITE-PRIV-0452 13 This document is an email relating to the Bahia redevelopment that does not mention 14 SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be 15 produced. 16 UNITE-PRIV-0453 17 This document is an email exchange with employees of the City of San Diego 18 regarding Mission Bay Park that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 19 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 20 UNITE-PRIV-0457 21 This document is an email exchange with employees of the City of San Diego 22

23 6 Plaintiffs also argue that evidence of Defendants’ “primary objective” to unionize the 24 Bahia is relevant to “SeaWorld’s perception of Defendants’ threats.” ECF No. 242 at 10 25 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs point to a letter that consultant Allison Rolfe sent to a SeaWorld representative that appears to be a duplicate of a letter included on Defendants’ 26 log of withheld documents. The letter itself, without any indication that SeaWorld was 27 aware of it, is not evidence of SeaWorld’s perception at all. The communication from Allison Rolfe to SeaWorld’s representative attaching the letter may be relevant to the issue 28 1 regarding Mission Bay Park that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 2 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 3 UNITE-PRIV-0462 4 This document is an email exchange with employees of the City of San Diego 5 regarding Mission Bay Park that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 6 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 7 UNITE-PRIV-0469 8 This document is an email exchange with employees of the City of San Diego 9 regarding Mission Bay Park that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 10 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 11 UNITE-PRIV-0477 12 This document is an email exchange with employees of the City of San Diego 13 regarding Mission Bay Park that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 14 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 15 UNITE-PRIV-0478 16 This document is an email exchange with employees of the City of San Diego 17 regarding Mission Bay Park that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 18 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 19 UNITE-PRIV-0485 20 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to a City of San Diego employee 21 regarding the proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does not mention SeaWorld. The 22 Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 23 UNITE-PRIV-0498 24 This document is an email regarding the Bahia redevelopment that does not mention 25 SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be 26 produced. 27 UNITE-PRIV-0499 28 This document is an email regarding the Bahia redevelopment that does not mention 1 SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be 2 produced. 3 UNITE-PRIV-0500 4 This document is a spreadsheet of contacts regarding the Bahia redevelopment. The 5 document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor 6 proportional and need not be produced. 7 UNITE-PRIV-0510 8 This document is a letter from a City of San Diego employee regarding the proposed 9 elimination of Gleason Road that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is 10 neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 11 UNITE-PRIV-0514 12 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 13 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 14 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 15 UNITE-PRIV-0520 16 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 17 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 18 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 19 UNITE-PRIV-0525 20 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 21 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 22 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 23 UNITE-PRIV-0528 24 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 25 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 26 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 27 UNITE-PRIV-0530 28 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 1 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 2 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 3 UNITE-PRIV-0533 4 This document is a memorandum dated November 13, 2018, to the City Council 5 President from several City Council members regarding a docketing request for the lease 6 amendment to the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that 7 it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 8 UNITE-PRIV-0534 9 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 10 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 11 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 12 UNITE-PRIV-0535 13 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 14 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 15 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 16 UNITE-PRIV-0537 17 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 18 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 19 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 20 UNITE-PRIV-0540 21 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 22 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 23 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 24 UNITE-PRIV-0541 25 This document is a string of text messages about lobbying the City Council regarding 26 the Bahia. The document does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 27 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 28 / / 1 UNITE-PRIV-0627 2 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to the Mayor and City Council 3 regarding the proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does not mention SeaWorld. The 4 Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 5 UNITE-PRIV-0639 6 This document includes attachments to a letter from Defendants’ counsel to the Mayor 7 and City Council regarding the proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does not 8 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 9 be produced. 10 UNITE-PRIV-0646 11 This document is a letter to the California Coastal Commission from a City Council 12 member regarding the Mission Bay Master Plan that does not mention SeaWorld. The 13 Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 14 UNITE-PRIV-0648 15 This document is an email regarding the Mission Bay Master Plan that does not 16 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 17 be produced. 18 UNITE-PRIV-0649 19 This document is a description of the Bahia proposed lease expansion that does not 20 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 21 be produced. 22 UNITE-PRIV-0650 23 This document is a description of the Bahia proposed lease expansion that does not 24 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 25 be produced. 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 UNITE-PRIV-0651 2 This document is a description of the Bahia proposed lease expansion that does not 3 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 4 be produced. 5 UNITE-PRIV-0652 6 This document is a letter from the City of San Diego to Defendants’ counsel regarding 7 the proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court 8 finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 9 UNITE-PRIV-0655 10 This document is a draft letter regarding an environmental review of the Bahia lease 11 amendment that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor 12 proportional, would be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine 13 even if relevant and proportional, and need not be produced. 14 UNITE-PRIV-0657 15 This document is an unsigned letter to a City Council member regarding the Bahia 16 expansion proposal that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither 17 relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 18 UNITE-PRIV-0661 19 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to the Mayor and City Council 20 regarding access to information regarding environmental review of the Bahia lease 21 amendment that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor 22 proportional and need not be produced. 23 UNITE-PRIV-0663 24 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to the Mayor and City Council 25 regarding access to information regarding environmental review of the Bahia lease 26 amendment that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor 27 proportional and need not be produced. 28 / / 1 UNITE-PRIV-0665 2 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to the Mayor and City Council 3 regarding access to information regarding environmental review of the Bahia lease 4 amendment that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor 5 proportional and need not be produced. 6 UNITE-PRIV-0667 7 This document is a spreadsheet listing letters sent to City Council members that does 8 not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need 9 not be produced. 10 UNITE-PRIV-0679 11 This document is a spreadsheet listing letters sent to City Council members that does 12 not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need 13 not be produced. 14 UNITE-PRIV-0680 15 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to the Mayor and City Council 16 regarding access to information regarding proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does 17 not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need 18 not be produced. 19 UNITE-PRIV-0685 20 This document is a spreadsheet listing contact information for City Council members 21 that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional 22 and need not be produced. 23 UNITE-PRIV-0686 24 This document is a spreadsheet listing contact information for City Council members 25 that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional 26 and need not be produced. 27 UNITE-PRIV-0687 28 This document is an email regarding the Mission Bay Master Plan that does not 1 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 2 be produced. 3 UNITE-PRIV-0688 4 This document is a memorandum to California Coastal Commission members 5 regarding the Mission Bay Master Plan that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds 6 that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 7 UNITE-PRIV-0730 8 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to a City of San Diego employee 9 regarding the proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does not mention SeaWorld. The 10 Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 11 UNITE-PRIV-0743 12 This document is a letter from Defendants’ counsel to a City of San Diego employee 13 regarding the proposed elimination of Gleason Road that does not mention SeaWorld. The 14 Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 15 UNITE-PRIV-7796 16 The redactions on this document are text messages regarding the Bahia redevelopment 17 that do not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional 18 and need not be produced. 19 IV. DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFFS 20 Plaintiffs withheld eleven documents from their production on the grounds that they 21 are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. As discussed 22 above, the Court must consider relevance and proportionality as a threshold matter. If a 23 document is not relevant and proportional, the Court need not reach the claim of attorney- 24 client privilege or work product doctrine. Stevens, 899 F.3d at 678 (affirming denial of 25 motion to compel documents listed on privilege log because there was no showing that the 26 documents were relevant). 27 Following the legal standard and principles discussed herein, the Court finds as 28 follows with respect to each document withheld by Plaintiffs. 1 Document No. 453 2 This document is an email dated December 5, 2018, from Robert Gleason to in- 3 house and outside counsel that attaches Mr. Gleason’s notes from meetings with 4 representatives of Defendants between December 2017 and February 2018. Defendants 5 move to compel production of Mr. Gleason’s notes. These notes summarize Mr. Gleason’s 6 interactions with labor representatives regarding their efforts to unionize Plaintiffs’ 7 employees. The notes do not mention SeaWorld. The Court therefore finds that the notes 8 are neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 9 Document Nos. 530 and 542 10 These documents are duplicates of each other. They are emails dated 11 February 9, 2018, from Mr. Gleason to Julia De Beers, Plaintiffs’ in-house counsel. 12 Defendants move to compel production of the attachments to the emails. The attachments 13 are documents regarding Defendants that appear to be publicly available. They do not 14 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that they are neither relevant nor proportional and need 15 not be produced. 16 Document No. 534 17 This document is an email dated January 31, 2018, from Mr. Gleason to William 18 Evans with a copy to Ms. De Beers. Defendants move to compel production of the 19 attachment to the email. The attachment is a document regarding Defendants that does not 20 mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not 21 be produced. 22 Document No. 570 23 This document is an email from Mr. Evans to outside counsel dated March 10, 2018, 24 attaching a law review article. Defendants move to compel production of the attachment to 25 the email. The attachment does not mention Defendants or SeaWorld. The Court finds that 26 it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 27 Document No. 635 28 This document is an email dated September 13, 2018, from Mr. Gleason to 1 Mr. Evans with a copy to Ms. De Beers. Defendants move to compel production of the 2 attachment to the email. The attachment is a document prepared by Ms. De Beers that 3 contains her impressions as an attorney. It does not mention Defendants or SeaWorld. The 4 Courts finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 5 Document No. 677 6 This document is an email dated October 10, 2018, from Mr. Gleason to outside 7 counsel with a copy to Mr. Evans attaching Mr. Gleason’s notes of calls in October 2018. 8 Defendants move to compel production of the attachment to the email. The email expressly 9 refers to the notes as “work product,” and it references SeaWorld. The attachment is an 10 integral part of the communication between Mr. Gleason and outside counsel seeking legal 11 advice. It is protected by the attorney-client privilege and need not be produced. 12 Document No. 686 13 This document is an email dated October 30, 2018, from outside counsel to 14 Mr. Evans, Mr. Gleason, and Ms. De Beers attaching a draft document request to the City 15 of San Diego. Defendants move to compel production of the attachment to the email. The 16 attachment is a draft document prepared by outside counsel and sent to members of 17 Plaintiffs’ executive leadership team as part of providing legal advice. It is protected by the 18 attorney-client privilege and need not be produced. 19 Document No. 740 20 This document is an email dated December 7, 2018, from Ms. De Beers. The 21 document indicates that the email was in fact sent, but it is unclear to whom it was sent. 22 Defendants move to compel production of the attachment to the email. The attachment is 23 a document regarding Defendants that does not mention SeaWorld. The Court finds that it 24 is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 25 Document No. 1794 26 This document is an email dated January 13, 2018, from Mr. Gleason to Mr. Evans. 27 Defendants move to compel production of the email. The attachment does not mention 28 / / 1 Defendants or SeaWorld. The Court finds that it is neither relevant nor proportional and 2 need not be produced. 3 Additional Document Submitted for In Camera Review on June 18, 2026 4 At a status conference on June 18, 2026, the Court agreed to review an additional 5 document that Plaintiffs withheld from their production. See ECF No. 257. The document 6 is minutes from a meeting of the Evans Hotels Executive Management Cabinet on 7 September 25, 2018. The minutes do not mention Defendants or SeaWorld. The Court 8 finds that this document is neither relevant nor proportional and need not be produced. 9 V. DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY THIRD PARTY SEAWORLD 10 Third-party SeaWorld, LLC, asserts that two documents it withheld from its 11 production and identified on a log are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work 12 product doctrine. Following the legal standard and principles discussed herein, the Court 13 finds as follows with respect to each document withheld by third-party SeaWorld. 14 PRIV_543-544 15 This document is an email dated August 16, 2018, from Corrine Brindley, who is 16 not a lawyer, to Tony Taylor, SeaWorld’s General Counsel. The email attaches notes that 17 Ms. Brindley took at a meeting with Plaintiffs regarding their joint venture at Mr. Taylor’s 18 request. The Court finds that this document is relevant to Plaintiffs’ secondary boycott 19 claim. SeaWorld contends that the notes are protected work product because they were 20 prepared at the direction of counsel and in anticipation of potential litigation. 21 Plaintiffs argue that the notes are not work product because SeaWorld has failed to 22 demonstrate that the “primary motivating purpose” for creating the notes was anticipated 23 litigation. ECF No. 247 at 3. Plaintiffs contend that SeaWorld’s description of the meeting 24 notes indicates that the meeting primarily involved discussion of business matters, and the 25 fact that the meeting was with Plaintiffs means that the notes of the meeting cannot be 26 privileged. Defendants take no position with respect to the discoverability of this 27 document. 28 1 The Court agrees with SeaWorld that the document is protected work product. 2 Although the notes were taken by a non-lawyer, Ms. Brindley, work product protection 3 “extends not only to work by the attorney but also to litigation preparation work by the 4 party or its representatives.” ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d at 1081. Even though 5 the meeting involved business discussions, having reviewed the notes, the Court cannot 6 discretely separate a business purpose from a litigation purpose in creating the notes. See 7 In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf), 357 F.3d at 910 (“The documents are entitled to 8 work product protection because, taking into account the facts surrounding their creation, 9 their litigation purpose so permeates any non-litigation purpose that the two purposes 10 cannot be discretely separated from the factual nexus as a whole”). The Court therefore 11 denies Plaintiffs’ request to compel production of PRIV_543-544. 12 PRIV_595-599 13 This document is a string of email exchanges between October 31, 2018, and 14 November 1, 2018. The first part of the string includes emails between Corrine Brindley 15 and David Watson, outside counsel to SeaWorld. The most recent emails in the string are 16 between Ms. Brindley and Allison Rolfe, a non-attorney consultant to SeaWorld. The 17 Court finds that this document is relevant to Plaintiffs’ secondary boycott claim. SeaWorld 18 contends that the first part of the string is a privileged communication between 19 Ms. Brindley and SeaWorld’s outside counsel, and the fact that Ms. Brindley forwarded 20 those emails to Ms. Rolfe is not a waiver of the privilege because Ms. Rolfe assisted with 21 rendering legal advice and functioned as part of SeaWorld’s litigation team. SeaWorld also 22 argues in the alternative that this document is protected work product because it was 23 prepared in anticipation of litigation. 24 Plaintiffs only respond to SeaWorld’s alternative claim that the document is work 25 product. Plaintiffs again argue that the document was not prepared because of anticipated 26 litigation because the log description indicates that the document relates to business 27 discussions that would have occurred regardless of litigation. Plaintiffs do not respond to 28 SeaWorld’s principal claim that the document is an attorney-client communication that is 1 || privileged. Defendants take no position with respect to the discoverability of this 2 || document. 3 The Court agrees with SeaWorld that the document is protected from discovery 4 ||under the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The attorney-client 5 || privilege “protects the giving of professional advice by the lawyer and the giving of 6 || information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.” Kintera, Inc. 7 || v. Convio, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 503, 508 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Where the client is a corporation, 8 ||the privilege extends to communications between non-attorneys for the purpose of 9 || providing information to an attorney to inform the attorney’s legal advice. ChevronTexaco 10 || Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Ms. Rolfe was acting as a consultant to SeaWorld and 11 |/responding to a specific request from Ms. Brindley for information to provide to 12 ||SeaWorld’s attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. 13 The Court also agrees with SeaWorld that the document is protected work product. 14 || Having reviewed the document, the Court could not segregate information relating to a 15 || business purpose from information exchanged in relation to anticipated litigation. The 16 || Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request to compel production of PRIV_ 595-599. 17 || VI. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the parties’ requests to compel 19 || production any of the withheld documents. ECF Nos. 242, 244, 246. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 23, 2026 _ Sor. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28