Escapes!, Inc. v. Legacy Land & Developments, LLC et al

Filing 211

ORDER granting 209 Motion to Enforce Subpoena. Non-party Baker Donelson is ORDERED to respond to the subpoenas by producing only the non-privileged documents and communications in its file related to Defendants' proposed purchase of the property at issue in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 3/22/2011. copies to parties. (sdb)

Download PDF
Escapes!, Inc. v. Legacy Land & Developments, LLC et al Doc. 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ESCAPES!, INC., Plaintiff, vs. LEGACY LAND & DEVELOPMENTS, LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Requiring Baker Donelson to Respond to Plaintiff's Subpoenas (Doc. 209). After consideration of the Notice of Intent to CIVIL ACTION 09-0515-KD-M Serve Subpoena for Records of a Non-Party (Doc. 101), Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena for Records of a Non-Party (Doc. 102), Objection to Subpoenas filed by Defendant William Kearney (Doc. 108), Escapes!, Inc.'s Response to Kearney's Objection to Baker Donelson Subpoenas (Doc. 134), and Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Requiring Baker Donelson to Respond to Plaintiff's Subpoenas (Doc. 209), the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant William Kearney objected to the subpoenas issued to Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC ("Baker Donelson"), a law firm which represented him and other Defendants with regard to the purchase of the property at issue in this action, because the subpoenas require production of Dockets.Justia.com material that Kearney asserts is protected under the attorneyclient privilege. (Doc. 108, p. 1). However, Plaintiff explains that it only requests production of "any and all non-privileged documents and communications in [Baker Donelson's] file related to Defendants' proposed purchase of the property at issue in this litigation." (Doc. 209, p. 4). "The attorney-client privilege exists to protect confidential communications between client and lawyer made for the purpose of securing legal advice[.]" In re Slaughter, 694 However, F.2d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 1982)(citations omitted). the attorney-client privilege "is not all-inclusive" and is "construed narrowly so as not to exceed the means necessary to support the policy which it promotes." In re Grand Jury Matter No. 91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992). The privilege is construed narrowly, as explained by the court in In re Grand Jury Matter No. 91-01386, as follows: [T]he argument that any communication between an attorney and client is protected by the privilege is overbroad. Merely because a matter which a lawyer is asked to reveal might incriminate a client does not make that matter privileged. The privilege is not designed to protect revelation of incriminating matters, only confidential communications between the 2 attorney and client regarding the matter of representation. Id. at 997. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED and non-party Baker Donelson is ORDERED to respond to the subpoenas by producing only the non-privileged documents and communications in its file related to Defendants' proposed purchase of the property at issue in this action. DONE this 22nd day of March, 2011. s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?