King Lum v. Kauai County Council

Good Law
358 F. App'x 860
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 200908-16093California806 words

Opinion

Opinion

King C. Lum appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants, as well as the district court’s affirmance of the magistrate judge’s order denying Lum’s motion to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court in all respects.

I.Lum’s Motion To Compel Discovery

Having reviewed the minutes in camera, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying Lum’s motion to compel discovery of the Kauai County Council’s Executive Session 177 minutes. Lum relies on an opinion letter from the Hawaii Office of Information Practices (OIP) stating that only a limited portion of the minutes was covered by the attorney-client privilege. The magistrate judge could reasonably have disagreed with OIP’s review of the minutes or concluded that the privileged material was so intertwined with nonprivileged material that redaction would be ineffective.

II.Lum’s Due Process, Breach of Contract and Violation of Public Policy Claims

The district court correctly determined that Lum did not have a property interest in his employment and, thus, does not have a viable due process claim.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.