The Boeing Company v. Tenenbaum Capital Partners, LLC

Filing 48

ORDER-re: Report and Recommendation 301 . The court hereby ADOPTS the Report and ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Special Master, with certain deadlines modified by agreement of the parties. It is ORDERED that the Motion to Strike is MOOT. The Mot ion to Compel is DENIED to the extent that it seeks immediate production of the Disputed Documents; however, Boeing's Motion to compel is GRANTED to the extent that Boeing is entitled to any Disputed Documents not protected by the attorney-clien t privilege and/or the work product doctrine. TCP's Motion to Quash and AAI's Motion to Quash are DENIED to the extent that those Motions seek the wholesale rejection of Boeing's entitlement to the production of the Disputed Documents; however, TCP's Motion to Quash and AAI's Motion to Quash are GRANTED to the extent that the Motions seeks to establish that Boeing may be prevented from obtaining some or all of the Disputed Documents because such documents are potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. TCP/AAI is required to produce a supplemental privilege log by 1/13/2017. If Boeing still wishes to challenge any of the renewed assertions, it may do so by filing specific, document-by-document challenges by 2/10/2017. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/13/2017. (AVC)

FILED
2017 Jan-13 AM 10:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES,
)
INC., ALABAMA AIRCRAFT
INDUSTRIES, INC. – BIRMINGHAM, AND )
)
PEMCO AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
)
SERVICES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
THE BOEING COMPANY,
)
BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS,
)
INC. AND BOEING AEROSPACE
)
SUPPORT CENTER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
THE BOEING COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TENENBAUM CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP

Case No.: 2:16-mc-01216-RDP

ORDER
On December 2, 2016, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Case
No. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP, Doc. # 301; Case No. 2:16-mc-01216-RDP, Doc. # 46) containing the
recommendation that (4) related motions, namely, (1) Boeing’s Motion to Compel the
Production of Documents by Tennenbaum Capital Partners (“TCP”), (2) TCP’s Motion to Quash
Boeing’s April 7, 2016 Subpoena, (3) TCP’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of J.

Thomas Richie, and (4) AAI’s Motion to Quash Boeing’s April 7, 2016 Subpoena, be granted in
part, denied in part, and deemed moot in part.
No interested party has objected to the Report and Recommendation. After careful
consideration of the record in this case and the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation,
the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Special Master. The court further ACCEPTS the
recommendations of the Special Master, with certain deadlines modified by agreement of the
parties. It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
1.

TCP’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

2.

Boeing’s Motion to Compel is DENIED to the extent that it seeks immediate
production of the Disputed Documents; however, Boeing’s Motion to Compel is
GRANTED to the extent that Boeing is entitled to any Disputed Documents not
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
Likewise, TCP’s Motion to Quash and AAI’s Motion to Quash are DENIED to
the extent that those Motions seek the wholesale rejection of Boeing’s entitlement
to the production of the Disputed Documents; however, TCP’s Motion to Quash
and AAI’s Motion to Quash are GRANTED to the extent that the Motions seeks
to establish that Boeing may be prevented from obtaining some or all of the
Disputed Documents because such documents are potentially protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. In order to facilitate a
final resolution of the parties’ tug of war over the Disputed Documents, TCP/AAI
is required to produce a supplemental privilege log on or before January 13,
2017, that details the application of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work
product doctrine on a document-by-document basis; any assertion of the work

2

product doctrine, in particular, shall be accompanied by an identification of the
specific litigation that was anticipated in creating the document at issue. If Boeing
still wishes to challenge any of the renewed assertions, it may do so by filing
specific, document-by-document challenges on or before February 10, 2017.
For those challenges aimed at an assertion of the work product doctrine, Boeing
should detail (1) why the work product doctrine is inapplicable, or (2) why
Boeing has a substantial need for the documents at issue and why Boeing cannot
obtain the information contained in the documents at issue by other means
without undue hardship. After reviewing Boeing’s challenges, the Special Master
will conduct an in camera review of the Disputed Documents, if necessary.
DONE and ORDERED this January 13, 2017.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3