Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2017
Summary: RULING FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF WAISMAN AND SENNOTT DOCUMENTS JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS , Magistrate Judge . The factual and procedural history behind this litigation is set forth in considerable detail in this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues, filed January 27, 2017 (Dkt. #191), 2017 WL 385034, Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues Regarding Depositions, filed February 14, 2017 (Dkt. #202)["February 2017 Discovery Ruling"], 2017 WL 589192, and Ruling Following In Camera
Summary: RULING FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF WAISMAN AND SENNOTT DOCUMENTS JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS , Magistrate Judge . The factual and procedural history behind this litigation is set forth in considerable detail in this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues, filed January 27, 2017 (Dkt. #191), 2017 WL 385034, Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues Regarding Depositions, filed February 14, 2017 (Dkt. #202)["February 2017 Discovery Ruling"], 2017 WL 589192, and Ruling Following In Camera ..
More
RULING FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF WAISMAN AND SENNOTT DOCUMENTS
JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS, Magistrate Judge.
The factual and procedural history behind this litigation is set forth in considerable detail in this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues, filed January 27, 2017 (Dkt. #191), 2017 WL 385034, Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues Regarding Depositions, filed February 14, 2017 (Dkt. #202)["February 2017 Discovery Ruling"], 2017 WL 589192, and Ruling Following In Camera Review of Wigmore Memo, filed February 27, 2017 (Dkt. #203), 2017 WL 750693.
The February 2017 Discovery Ruling held plaintiffs are entitled to take the deposition of Sonia Waisman, who is and has been since 2003 representing Travelers in the parallel coverage action between the parties in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, set for trial on June 20, 2017, because defendant listed Attorney Waisman in its Rule 26(a) disclosures of individuals who possess discoverable information to support its defenses, as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). 2017 WL 589192, at *2-3. With respect to the secondary issue regarding defendant's and Attorney Waisman's objections to the document requests served upon Attorney Waisman, and defendant's failure to provide a privilege log when it objected to the document requests in their entirety, the February 2017 Discovery Ruling ordered defendant to produce the responsive documents to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers, for her in camera review, on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product privilege, by March 3, 2017. Id. at *3.
The February 2017 Discovery Ruling also addressed the deposition of Stephen Sennott, defendant's former employee who testified in another lawsuit pending in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Goulds v. Travelers. Id. at *2, 4. The Ruling similarly ordered defendant to produce Sennott's responsive documents to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers, for her in camera review, on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product privilege, by March 3, 2017. Id. at *4, n.9.
Consistent with this Ruling, on March 3, 2017, defendant delivered two large binders of documents to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers, one each for Attorney Waisman and for Sennott. Within each binder was a directory of people who sent and received the documents to which a privilege was asserted,1 as well as a privilege log, dated February 23, 2017.
The binder for Attorney Waisman consisted of thirty-seven documents, covering 335 pages. After a careful in camera review, the Magistrate Judge finds that the following six documents are not privileged and copies must be provided to plaintiffs' counsel: Nos. 11-15, and 17.2 Defendant shall provide copies to plaintiffs' counsel on or before April 3, 2017. The remaining documents, however, are privileged (Nos. 1-10, 16, and 18-37) and need not be produced.
Sennott's binder consisted of 185 documents, covering 1,463 pages. After a careful in camera review, the Magistrate Judge finds that the following nineteen documents are not privileged and copies must be provided to plaintiffs' counsel: Nos. 6, 8-9, 21-22, 32-33, 42-44, 55, 109-10, 112-13, 117-18, and 181-82.3 Defendant shall provide copies to plaintiffs' counsel on or before April 3, 2017. The remaining documents, however, are privileged (Nos. 1-5, 7, 10-20, 23-31, 34-41, 45-54, 56-108, 111, 114-16, 119-44, 151, 158-61, 164, 167-80, and 183-854) and need not be produced.
This is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the standard of review of which is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) & 72; and Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon timely made objection. The two binders will remain in this Magistrate Judge's Chambers, unless otherwise requested by Judge Arterton or counsel.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within fourteen calendar days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; Impala v. United States Dept. of Justice, ____ F. App'x ___, 2016 WL 6787933 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2016)(summary order)(failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling will preclude further appeal to Second Circuit); cf. Small v. Sec'y, H&HS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second Circuit).
