Wirowek et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER WIROWEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-06795-VC (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 1/16/2026
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 68
[Discovery Letter No. 4]
On January 16, 2026, the parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning Defendant
Amazon’s request for records from Dr. David Olmstead, Plaintiff’s therapist during a prior lawsuit
against the City of San Francisco. (Discovery Letter at 4, Dkt. No. 68.)
Defendant argues that Dr. Olmstead’s records should be produced because they go to
whether his emotional distress and lost wages are the result of his allegedly wrongful termination
that is the subject of his prior lawsuit or the fall from the ladder that is the subject of the instant
lawsuit. (Discovery Letter at 4.) Plaintiff, in turn, objects based on privilege, including
psychotherapist-patient privilege, attorney-client privilege, and the spousal communication
privilege. (Id. at 6.)
As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff objected at all. Defendant asserts
that Plaintiff did not object, yet acknowledges that Plaintiff raised privilege objections on
November 24, 2025. (Discovery Letter at 2, 4.) Plaintiff, in turn, admits that he did not object
when he initially responded to the discovery requests in April 2025, but explains that counsel was
unaware that Dr. Olmstead’s records existed at the time. (Id. at 7.) It was not until October 12,
2025 that Defendant informed Plaintiff’s counsel of Dr. Olmstead’s involvement in the prior
lawsuit against San Francisco. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel received the records from Dr.
Case 3:24-cv-06795-VC Document 71 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Olmstead on November 21 and then raised his objections on November 24. (Id. at 2.)
Recognizing the delay, Plaintiff argues that the Court should find there is good cause to
excuse Plaintiff for failing to timely object. (Discovery Letter at 7.) “Unlike Rule 33 (dealing
with interrogatories), Rule 34 (dealing with requests for production) does not provide for an
express waiver -- or ‘good cause’ excuse -- for the failure to timely respond to requests for
production. Gosain v. Seto, No. 18-cv-06343-HSG (LB), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119252, at *19
(N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022). Courts, however, have explained that generally, the failure to object or
timely respond to discovery requests constitutes a waiver of objections. See Richmark Corp. v.
Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, “some courts have read
into Rule 34 the discretion granted under Rule 33(b)(4) (dealing with interrogatories) to excuse
untimely objections to requests for production.” Gosain, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119525, at *19
(internal quotation omitted).
Curiously, Defendant makes no argument that the good cause standard does not apply in
this case. There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s counsel was unaware of Dr. Olmstead’s records, or
that Plaintiff made his privilege objections only a few days after receiving the records. There is no
suggestion that Plaintiff acted in bad faith or that Defendant would be prejudiced by the delay.
Further, Defendant does not dispute that the privileges apply in this case; indeed, Defendant does
not address privilege at all in the discovery letter.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that good cause exists for the delay in asserting
privilege. As Defendant does not respond to Plaintiff’s assertion of privilege -- and it is not the
Court’s responsibility to craft arguments for Defendant -- the Court also finds that the
psychotherapist-patient, attorney-client, and spousal communication privileges apply, such that
production of Dr. Olmstead’s records is not required.
This order disposes of Dkt. No. 68.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-06795-VC Document 71 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 2