Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Filing 84

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages of 15 of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions (Carroll, Robert)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DISTRICT
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not individually,
but solely in his capacity as the Chapter 7
Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of
CMGT, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW LLP,
RONALD B. GIVEN, and CHARLES W.
TRAUTNER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 06 C 5486
Judge Virginia M. Kendall

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
HIS PRIVILEGE LOG ASSERTIONS IN EXCESS OF 15 PAGES
Plaintiff, David Grochocinski, in his capacity as the Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy
estate of CMGT, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), moves for leave to file a memorandum in support of his
privilege log assertions in excess of 15 pages. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states as
follows:
1. On October 30, 2007, Judge Kendall ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery
regarding an affirmative defense (which she referred to as the “unclean hands” issue) that
Defendants raised in their motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of Judge Kendall’s
denial of their motion to dismiss.
2. On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order in which he requested
the opportunity to: (a) review all documents to be produced by a third-party witness to whom
Defendants had issued a subpoena before the documents are produced to Defendants, (b) create a
privilege log for those documents that Plaintiff believes are protected by the work product
doctrine, and (c) file a motion for protective order with respect to the documents listed in the

privilege log before those documents are produced, so that any disputes about whether the
asserted privilege applies to those documents can be resolved before the documents are
produced.
3. On December 11, 2007, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion for protective
order. In their response, Defendants argued that the work product doctrine does not apply to any
documents relating to Plaintiff’s pre-lawsuit “state of mind” or his investigation and analysis of
his claims because he put his state of mind “at issue” when he responded to Defendants’ motion
to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.
4. On December 13, 2007, Judge Kendall referred this case to this Court for resolution of
privilege issues.
5. On January 17, 2008, this Court entered a briefing schedule on privilege log issues. In
that regard, the Court gave Plaintiff until February 20, 2008 to file an opening brief.
6. Because Defendants previously raised the “at issue” waiver doctrine, Plaintiff reasonably
anticipates that Defendants will argue the application of that doctrine in response to Plaintiff’s
memorandum in support of his privilege log assertions.
7. Therefore, in his memorandum in support of his privilege log assertions, Plaintiff
summarizes his claims in this case, the affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants in their
motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s responses to those defenses and
Judge Kendall’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration so that Plaintiff can explain
why the “at issue” waiver doctrine does not apply here. In addition, Plaintiff explains why
several categories of documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work
product doctrine.

2

8. Because of the relevant factual background that must be provided to address Defendants’
“at issue waiver” argument and because of the number of categories of documents addressed in
the memorandum, Plaintiff’s current draft memorandum is 24 pages long. Plaintiff is still
working on the draft and hopes to shorten it, but is reasonably anticipating that the final
memorandum will be 24 pages long. Plaintiff has used (and continues to use) his best efforts to
keep the memorandum as concise as possible.
9. If given leave to file an oversized memorandum, Plaintiff will include a table of contents
with the pages noted and a table of cases pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.
10. Defendants have no objection to this motion provided that they are given the same
number of pages for their response brief.
Wherefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court
enter an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a 24 page memorandum in support of his privilege
log assertions.
Dated: February 13, 2008

Respectfully submitted,
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not individually,
but solely in his capacity as the Chapter 7
Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of
CMGT, INC.
BY: ____/s/ Robert D. Carroll___________
Plaintiff’s attorneys

Edward T. Joyce
Arthur W. Aufmann
Robert D. Carroll
EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOC., P.C. - Atty No. 32513
11 South LaSalle Street, Ste., 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60603

3