TRZASKA v. L'OREAL USA, INC. et al

Filing 161

LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 3/5/2020. (ams, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903

SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

March 5, 2020

Harold I. Goodman, Esq.
Amber M. Racine, Esq.
Raynes Lawn Hehmeyer
1845 Walnut Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Plaintiff
Rosemary Alito, Esq.
K&L Gates LLP
One Newark Center, 10th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc.

LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:

Trzaska v. L’Oréal USA, Inc. & L’Oréal, S.A.
Civil Action No. 15-2713 (SDW) (LDW)

Counsel:
Before this Court is Plaintiff Steven J. Trzaska’s (“Plaintiff”) Appeal of Magistrate Judge
Leda D. Wettre’s January 6, 2020 Letter Order (“January 6th Order”) denying Plaintiff’s
application to compel production of three privileged emails (the “Emails”). (D.E. 146, 148.) This
Court having considered the parties’ submissions and having reached its decision without oral
argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the reasons discussed below,
affirms the Magistrate Judge’s decision.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review for Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Order
Magistrate judges may hear non-dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). A district court may reverse a magistrate judge’s
determination of a non-dispositive motion only where it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1992). A ruling is
clearly erroneous “when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Dome
Petroleum Ltd. v. Emp’rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 63, 65 (D.N.J. 1990) (quoting United
States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)) (internal quotations omitted). “A district judge’s
simple disagreement with the magistrate judge’s findings is insufficient to meet the clearly
erroneous standard of review.” Andrews v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 191 F.R.D. 59, 68
(D.N.J. 2000). An order is contrary to law “when the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or
misapplied the applicable law.” Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548
(D.N.J. 2006). This Court conducts a de novo review of legal conclusions. Cooper Hosp./Univ.
Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998) (citations omitted).
B. Judge Wettre’s January 6th Order Is Not Clearly Erroneous Or Contrary to Law
The January 6th Order correctly recognized that the “attorney-client privilege attaches to
any communication between an attorney and client that is made in confidence and for the
purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance.” (See D.E. 146 at 2 (citing In re Teleglobe
Commc’ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359 (3d Cir. 2007).) The Order also summarized the relevant
facts of this case, which were comprehensively presented by the parties in numerous written
submissions and during a telephonic hearing held on October 21, 2019. (Id. at 1; see also D.E.
148-2 Ex. 3, 4.) A review of those facts, specifically that the emails in question were: 1)
between L’Oréal USA, Inc.’s General Counsel and an executive of L’Oréal, S.A.; 2) sent after
Plaintiff had informed L’Oréal USA that he was contemplating litigation; 3) regarding Plaintiff’s
severance negotiations and providing legal advice about Plaintiff; and 4) marked as “AttorneyClient Privileged” when written, fully supports the application of the attorney-client privilege
and denial of Plaintiff’s request for production. (See D.E. 146 at 2 (noting that no exception to
the privilege applied and that no waiver existed).)
In declining to conduct an in camera review of the three emails in question, Judge Wettre
acted within her discretion. See, e.g., Speth v. Goode, Civ. No. 95-264, 2013 WL 3412050, at *6
(D.N.J. July 3, 2013), aff’d 607 F. App’x (3d Cir. 2015). In camera review is generally
disfavored, and the fact that defense counsel was willing to make documents available to the
Court does not obligate the Court to conduct an in camera review, nor does it preclude counsel
from arguing that such a review is unnecessary. See e.g., Corbi v. Marina Assocs., Civ. No. 085875, 2009 WL 10727983, at *2 (D.N.J. July 14, 2009).
This Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law, and will, therefore, affirm her ruling.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Magistrate Judge Wettre’s January 6, 2020 Letter Order is
AFFIRMED. An appropriate order follows.
___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

2

Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.

3