Dunnet Bay Construction Co v. Hannig
Filing
80
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff Dunnet Bay Construction Company's Motion to Reconsider Opinion Issued May 7, 2012, or Alternatively to Alter or Amend Judgment 74 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 02 July, 2012 02:07:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DUNNET BAY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY HANNIG in his official capacity
as Secretary of Transportation for the
Illinois Department of Transportation,
and the ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-cv-3051
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Dunnet Bay
Construction Company’s (Dunnet Bay) Motion to Reconsider Opinion
Issued May 7, 2012, or Alternatively to Alter or Amend Judgment (d/e 74)
(Motion). Dunnet Bay asks the Court to reconsider the Opinion entered
May 7, 2012 (d/e 71) (Opinion). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is DENIED.
Interlocutory order, such as the Opinion, may be revised at any time
before entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Typically, this Court will
entertain motions to reconsider an order if the movant presents newly
discovered evidence or demonstrates a manifest error of law. See LB
Page 1 of 3
Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995).
In this case, Dunnet Bay presents newly discovered evidence. After
careful consideration, the Court concludes that the newly discovered
evidence does not merit reconsideration of the Opinion.
The Opinion addressed Dunnet Bay’s Motion to Compel Production
by Governor Quinn and the Office of the Governor (d/e 58). Dunnet Bay
sought to compel non-parties Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and the Office of
Governor (collectively, the Governor) to produce documents pursuant to a
subpoena duces tecum. The Governor had asserted claims of privilege for
the documents at issue. The Court ordered the Governor to produce some
documents, but held that other documents were privileged. The Court
further found that some of the documents were privileged even though the
documents were shared with persons in other agencies within Illinois state
government. The Court found that the other agencies shared a common
legal interest with the Governor. Opinion, at 8.
The Defendants Illinois Secretary of Transportation Gary Hannig and
the Illinois Department of Transportation (Department) have now produced
some of the same privileged documents in response to Dunnet Bay’s
discovery requests. Motion, at 2, and attached Exhibit 1. The Department
was one of the agencies that shared a common interest with the Governor
and had access to some of the privileged documents. Dunnet Bay argues
Page 2 of 3
that this disclosure by the Defendants constitutes a selective waiver of the
Governor’s claim of privilege. Dunnet Bay asks the Court to reconsider the
Opinion in light of this selective waiver of privilege and order the Governor
to produce all documents within the scope of the waiver.
The Court will not reconsider the Opinion on these grounds. The
Court sees no waiver of privilege by the Governor. In the context of the
common interest doctrine, a waiver of privilege requires the consent of all
parties. United States v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806, 817 (7th Cir.
2007). The disclosure by the Defendants, thus, cannot constitute a waiver
of the Governor’s claim of privilege without the consent of the Governor.
Dunnet Bay presents no evidence of such consent. The Governor’s claim
of privilege has not been waived, and thus the Court will not reconsider the
Opinion.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Dunnet Bay Construction Company’s (Dunnet
Bay) Motion to reconsider Opinion Issued May 7, 2012, or Alternatively to
Alter or Amend Judgment (d/e 74) is DENIED.
ENTER:
July 2, 2012
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 3 of 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?