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

Filing 1694

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for detail) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that "National City's Request for Clarification and/or Modification of Proposed Order on Wittner Documents" [ECF No. 1681 ] is DENIED in part, and GRANTED in part. National Citys Request for Modification of the Proposed Order on Wittner Documents is denied. National City's Request for Clarification is granted; as discussed herein. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/02/2014. (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 on “National City’s Request for Clarification and/or
Modification of Proposed Order on Wittner Documents [ECF No. 1681].
On September 8, 2014, the Court, at Plaintiffs’ request, conducted a telephone conference
to discuss a dispute that had arisen among the parties regarding production of certain documents
currently in the control of Former Wittner Defendants. [ECF No. 1669]. The parties agreed they
would confer to achieve a resolution, and Plaintiff would submit a proposed Order. All parties
were afforded ten days’ notice, after filing of the proposed Order, to file any objections.
Plaintiffs submitted for the Court’s consideration, a proposed “Order Governing
Production of Documents in the Control of Former Wittner Defendants” on September 12, 2014
[ECF No. 1675-1]. Subsequently, National City filed its Request for Clarification and/or
Modification of Proposed Order on Wittner Documents. In this Request, National City states its
belief the current proposed Order “contemplates and is reasonably read to allow Plaintiffs to give
National City a copy of all documents they receive under the proposed order, including the
1

documents referred to as ‘Plaintiffs’ First Set’ and ‘Plaintiffs’ Second Set’ in the proposed
order,” [ECF No. 1681 at 1]. However, National City wishes to avoid any doubt, and requests
the Order be modified to state that National City is entitled to receive a copy of all documents
Plaintiffs receive under the proposed Order, including the documents referred to as “Plaintiffs;
First Set” and “Plaintiffs’ Second Set” in the proposed Order.
On October 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed “Plaintiffs’ Second Notice Regarding Proposed Order
Governing Production of Documents in the Control of Former Wittner Defendants” [ECF No.
1690]. Plaintiffs report they asked Former Wittner Defendants to state their position regarding
National City’s request, and they attach to their Notice a letter from Former Wittner Defendants
[ECF Nos. 1690, 1690-1]. In the letter, Former Wittner Defendants state as follows:
The Wittner Firm, appreciating National City’s need for access to relevant, nonprivileged documents within the above-referenced litigation, feels compelled to
reassert that the “Wittner Documents” do not belong to the Wittner Firm, but
rather to former clients of the Wittner Firm. In that light, the Wittner Firm
proposes that Plaintiff, in connection with the Proposed Order, produce to
National City only those documents contained within Plaintiff’s First Set and
Plaintiffs’ Second Set which are otherwise not returned to the Wittner Firm
pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Proposed Order[.]
[ECF No. 1690-1 at 3]. The Court respects the positions of both National City and the Wittner
Firm; however, the concern that National City may receive privileged or unrelated documents, to
which it is not entitled, outweighs National City’s objection to the current proposed Order.
Consequently, the Court will deny National City’s request for modification. The Court will enter
the Order as proposed, on this date. As to National City’s request for clarification regarding
production to National City, Plaintiffs shall distribute only those documents contained within
Plaintiffs’ First Set and Plaintiffs’ Second Set that are not returned to the Wittner Firm.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that “National City’s Request for Clarification and/or
Modification of Proposed Order on Wittner Documents [ECF No. 1681] is DENIED in part,
and GRANTED in part. National City’s Request for Modification of the Proposed Order on
Wittner Documents is denied. National City’s Request for Clarification is granted; as discussed
above.
So Ordered this 2nd day of October, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3