Green-Cooper et al v. Brinker International, Inc.

Filing 150

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 128 Brinker's Motion to Compel Documents. The Court has determined which documents should be produced, and those documents are excerpted and attached hereto. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/4/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Produced Document Excerpts) (TNM)

Case 3:18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR Document 150 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5584

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
In re:

Case No. 3:18-cv-686-J-32MCR

BRINKER DATA INCIDENT
LITIGATION

ORDER
In his June 26, 2020 deposition, Plaintiff Eric Steinmetz testified that he
had taken notes during phone calls he had with Chili’s and Brinker regarding
the data breach incident that is the subject of this litigation. Steinmetz had not
previously produced these notes, nor had he listed them on any privilege log. In
response to Brinker’s subsequent request that he produce the notes, Steinmetz
claimed they were protected by the attorney/client privilege and served a
privilege log. Brinker now moves to compel the notes (Doc. 128); Steinmetz filed
a response in opposition (Doc. 134).
As part of its review of Brinker’s motion to compel (Doc. 128), the Court
determined that it should review the documents on Plaintiff’s privilege log (Doc.
128, Ex. 5) in camera. (Doc. 135). Plaintiff filed the documents under seal on
October 1, 2020. (Doc. S-136). 1
The privilege log only includes entries for some, but not all, of the
correspondence that was submitted to the Court for in camera review. All of the
correspondence submitted to the Court for review should have been included on
1

Case 3:18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR Document 150 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5585

Upon review, the Court finds that while some of the correspondence is
privileged, the contents of two of the emails are not privileged. Steinmetz
testified at his deposition that he was not contemplating litigation and did not
call Chili’s or Brinker at the behest of an attorney. (However, the emails are
sent to an attorney). The two emails provide factual information regarding the
content of those calls. The Court finds that those emails should be produced.
The emails have been excerpted from the documents submitted to the Court
and are attached hereto.
Accordingly, Brinker’s Motion to Compel Documents (Doc. 128) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as stated herein.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 4th day of
December, 2020.

tnm
Copies:
Counsel of record

the privilege log. (See Docs. S-136, S-136-1, S-136-2, S-136-3).
2