Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al

Filing 1495

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that "Plaintiffs' Motion for In Camera Review" [ECF No. 1439 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wittner Defendants, or the party having custody and control of t he documents that are listed on the Wittner Defendants' revised privilege log [ECF No. 1439-2], shall produce to this Court the documents to which privilege is being asserted, and shall deliver the documents to chambers for the Court's review, within ten (10) days of this Order. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 04/08/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JO ANN HOWARD &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
J. DOUGLAS CASSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:09CV01252 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon “Plaintiffs’ Motion for In Camera Review”
[ECF No. 1439].
In an Order dated September 18, 2013, this Court, after weighing the severity of waiving
the privilege afforded attorney-client communications against the conduct of certain defendants
during the course of discovery in this matter, found that waiver of privilege concerning
documents possessed by the Wittner Defendants, among others, was appropriate [ECF No.
1279]. The Court ordered any attorney/client privilege that had been asserted concerning all
documents listed in a 47-page privilege log, prepared by Wittner Defendants on behalf of Forever
Defendants, and produced to Plaintiffs, be waived, and directed Wittner Defendants to provide
revised responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, removing all objections and otherwise
complying with the Court’s directions in its June 24 Order. The Court reaffirmed this ruling on
November 13, 2013, when it denied the Wittner Defendants’ motion to reconsider and request for
clarification; however, the Court stated it was “willing to conduct an in camera review, upon a
sufficient showing of the applicability of the attorney-client privilege [ECF No. 1340].

In their Motion, Plaintiffs report that, in response to the Court’s November 13, 2013
Order, the Wittner Defendants sent a revised privilege log, containing 306 entries involving
twenty entities and seven individuals, to all parties on December 27, 2013 [ECF No. 1439-2].
Plaintiffs move the Court to conduct an in camera review of documents listed on the Wittner
Defendants’ revised privilege log. Plaintiffs state that many documents listed on the revised log
either do not appear to be privileged; were disclosed to third parties, or involve defunct entities.
Plaintiffs further state the Wittner Defendants do not oppose the relief requested in this motion,
and, upon the Court’s request, will produce the documents to the Court for its review. Wittner
Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion. On March 10, Plaintiffs filed a
Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of Complaint against Wittner Defendants, and on
March 12, 2014, this Court, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, dismissed with prejudice,
all claims against Wittner Defendants.
On March 27, 2014, the Court issued an Order holding the Motion in abeyance, and
directing Plaintiffs to submit a Status Report regarding their Motion [ECF No. 1477]. In
accordance with the March 27 Order, Plaintiffs submitted a Status Report, indicating the issues
surrounding the revised privilege log have not been resolved, and asserting the in camera review
remains warranted due to the relevance of the documents in the Wittner Defendants’ possession,
to the facts in this action [ECF No. 1489].
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Motion for In Camera Review” [ECF No.
1439] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wittner Defendants, or the party having custody and
2

control of the documents that are listed on the Wittner Defendants’ revised privilege log [ECF
No. 1439-2], shall produce to this Court the documents to which privilege is being asserted, and
shall deliver the documents to chambers for the Court’s review, within ten (10) days of this
Order.
Dated this

8th

day of April, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3