Firefighters' Retirement System et al v. Citco Group Limited et al

Filing 508

NOTICE AND ORDER RE: 481 MOTION to Continue Submission Date on Motion to Compel Privileged Documents or Alternative MOTION to Compel Privileged Documents, and 483 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents Withheld Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Privilege Log. On or before 12/29/2017, Parties shall file documents as written. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 12/20/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FIREFIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
13-373-SDD-EWD
CITCO GROUP LIMITED, ET AL.
NOTICE AND ORDER
Before the court are: (1) The Louisiana Funds’ Motion to Continue Submission Date on
Motion to Compel Privileged Documents or Alternative Motion to Compel Privileged Documents
(“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel”);1 and (2) Citco’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Withheld Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Privilege Log (“Defendants’ Motion to Compel”).2 Both motions
challenge the sufficiency of the privilege logs and seek to compel production of documents for
which each party has claimed privilege. Both motions were discussed during the December 12,
2017 status conference and taken under advisement.3 Based on further review, the undersigned
finds that additional information is necessary to rule on the two Motions to Compel.
Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Defendants have previously submitted a revised
Exhibit 1 “describing privileged communications sent by Citco employees to in-house
counsel….”4 However, it does not appear that Exhibit 1 distinguishes between documents (1) that
were sent to in-house counsel or that instead (2) on which in-house counsel was only carbon
copied. Additionally, although some of the individuals named on Defendants’ privilege log have

1

R. Doc. 481.

2

R. Doc. 483.

3

See, R. Doc. 506.

4

R. Docs. 499-2 & 499-3.

1

been previously identified, the undersigned’s review would be assisted by the provision of a chart
setting out the position and/or function of each individual named on the Defendants’ privilege log.5
Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel, the entries still at issue reference “Mourant” or
“Mouvant,”6 “MTBA,” and “UCBI.”7 Other entries improperly list the author as “LA Funds” or
“NOFF employee.” See, XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., Civil Action No. 122071, 2014 WL 295053, ay * 6 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2014) (ordering defendant to either produce
documents or provide a supplemental log as to 12 entries that identified only entities in the “to”
and “from” column); Chemtech Royalty Associates, L.P. v. U.S., Civil Action Nos. 05-944, 06258, 07-405, 2009 WL 854358, at * 5 (M.D. La. March 30, 2009) (finding privilege log that, inter
alia, listed the author of certain documents as “‘Dow Chemical Company,’ which is an entity and
not an individual” was insufficient and requiring plaintiff to provide a revised privilege log).
Accordingly,

Based on the undersigned’s review of the revised log entries, R. Docs. 499-3 through 499-10, it appears that certain
entries appear on multiple exhibits (i.e., there is some overlap between entries listed on Exhibits 1 through 4(a)-(e)).
The undersigned’s request herein is for a chart setting out the identity and position and/or function of any individual
listed on Exhibits 1 through 4(a)-(e) in the “from,” “to,” or “CC” column.
5

One of the log entries states that this is a “third party lawfirm.” R. Doc. 507, Exhibit A. In opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs submitted a list of attorneys and law firms that performed work for Plaintiffs. R. Doc.
496, pp. 5-6. “Mourant” and/or “Mouvant” is not included on that list and therefore it is unclear whether this law firm
was representing one of the Plaintiffs or an unrelated third party.
6

Defendants’ Motion to Compel was discussed during the December 12, 2107 status conference. During the
conference, counsel for the Citco Defendants stated that after reviewing Plaintiffs’ most recent revisions to Plaintiffs’
privilege log, the Citco Defendants believed the descriptions for approximately 15-25 of the entries were still deficient.
The Citco Defendants agreed to send a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on December 13, 2017 setting forth the entries
which the Citco Defendants believed to be deficient, and Plaintiffs were to revise those entries or inform the Citco
Defendants that no further revisions would be made by Friday, December 15, 2017. The court ordered the parties to
submit a joint letter on December 18, 2017 setting out the entries on Plaintiffs’ privilege log that are still at issue. On
December 18, 2017, the parties submitted the requested letter. R. Doc. 507. Rather than clarifying which entries are
still at issue, the December 18, 2017 correspondence only serves to muddy the waters because the parties “disagree
about what entries remain at issue.” While Defendants have submitted a new Exhibit A setting out 19 entries
Defendants assert remain at issue, Plaintiffs contend that only three of those entries remain at issue. As the new
Exhibit A supplements and modifies Defendants’ Motion to Compel, the undersigned considers all entries as set forth
in R. Doc. 507, Exhibit A to be at issue.
7

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before Friday, December 29, 2017, the Citco
Defendants shall submit: (1) a revised Exhibit 18 that distinguishes between documents which were
sent to in-house counsel or instead on which in-house counsel was only carbon copied; and (2) a
chart setting out the position and/or function of each individual named in the Defendants’ privilege
log.9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before Friday, December 29, 2017, Plaintiffs
shall submit a revised Exhibit A that explains all acronyms used therein (including “MTBA” and
“UCBI”) as well as the role of “Mourant”/“Mouvant” and which revises, if possible, entries
currently naming “LA Funds” or “NOFF employee” as author.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 20, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

499-3.

9

R. Docs. 499-3 through 499-10.

3