Makhoul v. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP et al

Filing 71

Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go on 1/4/13. Appearances by plaintiff G. Makhoul; K. Glenn and M. Rice for defendant; defendant V. Katsontonis present. Rulings made on the record denying in part and deferring i n part 68 plaintiffs motion to compel. Those aspects of motion which repeat arguments previously made and denied by this Court are denied. That part of the motion regarding defendants' supplementary responses to plaintiffs interrogatories an d requests for admission is denied because the Court finds the responses sufficient. As to the remaining aspect of the motion, the Court will conduct an in camera review of certain documents as set forth in the attached minute order. (Tape #FTR/C 10:11-10:47.) (Proujansky, Josh)

United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
MAKHOUL V. WATT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & FITZGERALD, LLP
11-CV-5108 (JG)
MINUTE ORDER
This Minute Order summarizes the rulings made on the record at
a conference on January 4, 2013 regarding plaintiff's motion to
compel [68]. The motion is deferred in part for further review by
the Court, as set forth below, and the remainder of the motion is
denied.
1.

In the instant motion, plaintiff repeats the same

arguments that he raised in a prior motion to compel.
57.

See ct. doc.

At a hearing on October 2, 2012, this Court denied the motion

in large part, but required defendants to supplement their
responses to certain discovery requests.
(ct. doc. 64).

See 10/4/12 Minute Order

This Court also deferred that portion of

plaintiff's motion regarding documents withheld by defendants on
grounds of attorney-client privilege and/or work product, but
directed plaintiff to reconsider this facet of his motion in light
of a narrowed scope of discovery ordered by this Court.

Id.

Plaintiff's renewed arguments as to the discovery requests
previously addressed are denied.

Insofar as plaintiff is

challenging the defendants’ supplementary responses ordered by this
Court to plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for admission,
this Court finds the responses sufficient.
2.

The remainder of plaintiff's motion to compel concerns

documents listed on defendants' revised 11/1/12 privilege log,
which plaintiff lists and describes in Appendices A and B to his
notice of motion filed on 12/21/12.

See ct. doc. 69.

Other than

abiding by the narrowed time frame this Court set and including
documents consisting of attorney notes newly added to the privilege
log, plaintiff seeks the same documents and raises essentially the
same arguments made in a related action, Safeco v. M.E.S., Inc., 09
CV 3312 (ARR)(VMS).

Such an approach is not appropriate since the

claims asserted in these two actions involve different parties,
claims and evidence.
This Court finds, given the nature of plaintiff's claims and
the fact that plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, that in
camera review of the documents may be the most efficient way of
addressing the dispute by determining, in the first instance,
whether any of the documents in dispute are arguably relevant to
plaintiff's claims.

However, review shall be limited to documents

that may have bearing on the existence of an attorney client
relationship, which do not include drafts of agreements that
defendants transmitted to Safeco.

By 1/11/13, plaintiff may

specify any 20 documents in Appendix A for the Court to review.

By

1/18/13, defendants must produce for in camera review the documents
specified by plaintiff and any other documents listed in Appendix A
that refer to communications between defendants and plaintiff or
any managerial level MES employee.
3.

Defendants are encouraged in the course of their review of

documents for submission to the Court to disclose to plaintiff
those portions of withheld documents, including invoices, that are
not protected by privilege or work product, including references to
communications between defendants and plaintiff or any MES
managerial level employee.

Portions of such documents that do

contain protected material may be redacted while the remainder of
the document is disclosed.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
January 7, 2013
/s/___________________________
MARILYN D. GO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE