Ryan Uehling v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN UEHLING,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, FRESNO,
Respondent,
MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES, INC.,
Real Party in Interest.
No. 13-72621
D.C. No. 1:13-mc-00022-LJO-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2014
San Francisco, California
FILED
FEB 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,
District Judge.**
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 (Cal. Ct.
App. 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
** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

contempt citation for violation of the district court’s order. See In re Nat’l Mortg.
Equity Corp. Mortg. Pool Certif. Litig., 821 F.2d 1422, 1424 (9th Cir. 1987)
(“[A]n immediate appeal is proper if it is unlikely that the third party will risk a
contempt citation simply to create a final order for the person asserting the
privilege”); Belfer v. Pence, 435 F.2d 121, 123 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam).
Moreover, again assuming clear error, mandamus is inappropriate because
the district court’s order does not raise particularly new, injurious, or oft-repeated
legal issues. See Van Dusen, 654 F.3d at 841; see also Mohawk Indus. v.
Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 110 (2009); cf. Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095,
1101 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --