Flagstar Bank, FSB v. FREESTAR Bank, N.A.

Filing 13

ORDER, Denying 1 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead. (amm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Flagstar Bank, FS B

v.

Civil

No . 09-mc-13-J M

FREESTAR Bank, N .A .

ORDER

I have reviewed the in camera filings, the supplementa l
objection and the Knight deposition and exhibits . It is clear that the April 13`h letter and enclosure are not related to legal advice concerning the name "FREESTAR" since the decision on the name was already made . In fact, reviewing that letter and the note on it, the attorney was simply passing along an idea for a logo based on one longer in use . That is business advice, not legal advice .

It is also clear that the September 4`h emails are essentially a "cover letter" and a non-lawyer gathering of discovery documents . The September 5th email is not from or to counsel and does not contain any privileged information . For example, trademark searches are neither work product nor attorney-client privileged . Only the advice and legal

conclusions based on the searches are protected . See Klavman v . Freedom's Watch, Inc . , 2007 WL 4414803 (S .D . Fla .) ; Cytosport,

Inc . v . Nature's Best Inc . , 2007 WL 1040993 (E .D .Cal .) . What Knights or Scott did by way of searches was not for or directed by counsel . The emails are not privileged . The motion to quash subpoena (document no . 1) is denied . Defendant is ordered to produce the documents . SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhea d tates Magistrate Judg e Date : May 13, 200 9
cc : Holly J . Kilibarda, Esq . Robert A . Kearney, Esq . Stephen David Coppolo, Esq . William C . Saturley, Esq .

2