Strauch et al v. Computer Sciences Corp

Filing 146

RULING Following In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 2/26/15.(Malone, A.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------------------------------X
:
JOSEPH STRAUCH, ET AL
:
:
V.
:
:
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------X

3:14 CV 956 (JBA)

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2015

RULING FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW
Familiarity is presumed with this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Defendant's Motion to
Compel, filed February 10, 2015 (Dkt. #138)["February 2015 Discovery Ruling"], in which
this Magistrate Judge ordered an in camera review of the "handful of documents" to which
plaintiffs asserted a privilege. The parties previously had provided a copy of plaintiffs' Log
of Documents Withheld on the Basis of Privilege or Work Product Protection, dated October
22, 2014 (Dkt. #132, Exh. C), as well as six pages of redacted e-mails and two pages of
redacted messages on LinkedIn. (Dkt. #121, Exh. D). Pursuant to the February 2015
Discovery Ruling, on February 25, 2015, plaintiffs produced the unredacted versions of these
eight pages.
After a careful review of these eight pages, the Magistrate Judge agrees that the
redacted portions are all protected from disclosure, under either the attorney-client privilege
or the work product doctrine, or by simply omitting a personal e-mail address.
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), 6(e) & 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.
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), 6(e) & 72; Rule
72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, 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).
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 26th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

2