Vazquez v. Mayorkas

Opinion

1 2 5 6 TONETTE L. VAZQUEZ, Case No. 18-cv-07012-JCS 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND FOR 8 Vv. EXTENSION OF TIME 9 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Re: Dkt. No. 141 10 Defendant. 1] 12 Plaintiff Tonette Vazquez, pro se, moves for appointment of counsel and for an extension 13 of time. That motion is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 3, 2021 order (dkt. 14 125) denying a similar motion. 3 15 Ms. Vazquez also objects to the Court’s determination that she waived attorney-client 16 privilege with respect to communications regarding the purported settlement. “The privilege 17 which protects attorney-client communications may not be used both as a sword and a shield.” 18 Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992). By asserting that her then- 19 attorneys entered a settlement agreement without authorization and pressured her to accept it, Ms. 20 Vazquez has placed her communications with her then-attorneys directly at issue in the case. 21 Under such circumstances, the attorney-client privilege is waived. See AT & T Mobility LLC v. 22 Yeager, No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD, 2014 WL 6633374, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2014) 23 (holding that where “a client alleges an attorney acted without authorization,” the client “‘in all 24 probability waives the attorney client privilege” (citing Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 719 25 (9th Cir. 2003))). 27 Dated: June 17, 2021 6 Z- □□ J PH C. SPERO 28 ief Magistrate Judge