Uehling
Uehling v. United States District Court for the Eastern District
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Ryan Uehling petitions for a writ of mandamus protecting him from responding to five deposition questions, which, he asserts, seek privileged responses.
The district court did not clearly err, as required for mandamus to issue, see Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 408 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2005), in ordering Uehling to respond to the questions. It was not clear error to apply California privilege law in the absence of controlling precedent requiring the application of federal privilege law. See In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838, 845 (9th Cir.2011). Nor was it clear error to find Millennium had made the “prima facie showing” required under California law to invoke the crime-fraud exception. See BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1268 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 (1988).
Mandamus would be inappropriate even if the district court clearly erred because Uehling has adequate alternative means to obtain relief. See Van Dusen, 654 F.3d at 841 (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977)). Because Uehling seeks to protect his own interests, he may appeal a contempt citation for violation of the district…