Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. RLJ Lodging Trust

Filing 86

ORDER: Defendant RLJ Lodging Trust's Motion for In Camera Inspection To Compel Production of Unredacted Document 69 is granted in part (as to the request for in camera inspection) and denied as to the motion to compel. At the Court's requ est, Defendant submitted the document that is the subject of the motion for in camera inspection in un-redacted form on 7/7/14. The Court has since reviewed the document and now denies Defendant's motion to compel production of that document in un-redacted form. See attached Statement for further details. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 8/4/2014. Mailed notice (ber, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Plaintiff(s),
Case No. 13-cv-00758
Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

v.
RLJ Lodging Trust,
Defendant(s).
ORDER

Defendant RLJ Lodging Trust’s Motion for In Camera Inspection To Compel Production of
Unredacted Document [69] is granted in part (as to the request for in camera inspection) and
denied as to the motion to compel. At the Court’s request, Defendant submitted the document
that is the subject of the motion for in camera inspection in un-redacted form on 7/7/14. The
Court has since reviewed the document and now denies Defendant’s motion to compel
production of that document in un-redacted form. See Statement below for further details.
STATEMENT
I.

Background Facts

The document at issue is an Asset Status Report (“ASR”) prepared by Daniel
Greenholtz, an employee of Plaintiff Torchlight Loan Services, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Torchlight”)
on February 16, 2012. Mr. Greenholtz was deposed on April 22, 2014, by counsel for Defendant
RLJ Lodging Trust (“Defendant” or “RLJ”) and he was questioned about the ASR during his
deposition. He testified that the ASR was one of the documents that he reviewed a week or so
before he was deposed. Transcript of Greenholtz Deposition (“Greenholtz Dep.”) at 15-16,
attached as Exhibit D to Defendant’s Motion to Compel [DE#69-4].
A single sentence was redacted from the ASR when it was produced on the basis of the
attorney-client privilege. The redacted sentence is described as containing “legal advice from
counsel regarding legal strategy and legal theories regarding the mortgage, note, and guaranty.”
Plaintiff’s Privilege Log, attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Privileged Information in Redacted Document [DE#74-1]. Mr. Greenholtz testified the
version of the document he reviewed before his deposition did not have that sentence redacted.
Greenholtz Dep at 34 - 35. At his deposition, Mr. Greenholtz said that his review of a number of
documents in his litigation file – which the Court assumes included the un-redacted ASR based
upon Mr. Greenholtz’s testimony and the presentation in Defendant’s motion – “somewhat”
refreshed his recollection. Id. at 20. Mr. Greenholtz also testified that his review of
“correspondence with legal counsel” from his files in preparation for his deposition refreshed his
recollection “as to the general circumstances that were involved in this matter.” Id. at 17.

Rev. 10/2013