Bray & Gillespie Management LLC et al v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 451

ORDER re 450 MOTION to compel Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC's Production of Documents and Further Amendment of Plaintiffs' Amended Privilege Log filed by Lexington Insurance Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding on 2/17/2009. (DAH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MID D L E DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION B R A Y & GILLESPIE MANAGEMENT L L C , BRAY & GILLESPIE, DELAWARE I, L .P ., BRAY & GILLESPIE X, LLC, et al. P l a i n tif f s , -v sL E X I N G T O N INSURANCE COMPANY, D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________________/ C a se No. 6:07-cv-222-Orl-35KRS O RDER T h is cause came on for consideration on the following motion filed herein: M OTION: L E X I N G T O N INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO C O M P E L BRAY & GILLESPIE MANAGEMENT, LLC'S P R O D U C T I O N OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER AM ENDM ENT OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED P R I V I L E G E LOG (Doc. No. 450) F e b r u a r y 6, 2009 F IL E D : C o u n s e l for Plaintiffs Bray & Gillespie companies (B&G) are reminded that they must review m y Standing Order Regarding Privilege Logs with respect to the legal analysis and evidence required i n response to the motion. Standing Order Regarding Privilege Logs, found online at http:// w w w .flm d .u s c o u rts .go v Judicial Info Judge Spaulding Standing Orders. The Court may not c o n d u c t a hearing on the motion if the legal analysis and evidence is insufficient to support a prima f a c i e showing that each privilege and protection claimed can be sustained. The allegedly privileged a n d protected documents at issue shall not be presented for review unless requested by the Court. W ith respect to e-mail and other related communications, the communications should be s e p a ra te ly listed on the log so that the Court can determine whether alleged attorney-client c o m m u n ic a tio n s were made in confidence and maintained in confidence. Each individual listed on the log must be identified in a manner that will allow the Court and th e parties to determine whether the individual is the agent of a party and, with respect to attorneyc lie n t communications, whether the individual was within the group of people necessary to the a tto rn e y-c lie n t communication. See Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Fla. 1 9 9 4 ) . With respect to the work product protection, the anticipated litigation must be specifically i d e n t i fi e d . D u e to the imminent close of the fact discovery period, it is unlikely that the Court will provide B & G with another opportunity to amend the privilege log if the log and supporting evidence presented in response to the motion is insufficient to establish prima facie support for the claimed privileges and p r o t e c ti o n s . C o u n s e l are also reminded that filing motions related to fact discovery late in the fact discovery p e r i o d and the pendency of such motions will not support a request for an enlargement of the discovery p e r io d absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances that prevented the motion from being filed at a n earlier date. D O N E and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 16, 2009. Karla R. Spaulding KARLA R. SPAULDING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: C o u n s e l of Record U n r e p r e s en t e d Parties -2-

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?