Vazquez v. Mayorkas

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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))). 26 IT ISSO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: June 17, 2021 6 Z- □□ J PH C. SPERO 28 ief Magistrate Judge