Torres v. New York Metodist Hospital et al

Filing 61

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Motion Hearing held on April 13, 2017 and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Letter Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Documents Improperly Withheld on the Basis of Privilege and/or to Amend Privilege Logs. Attorney Steven Seltzer appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Attorney Brian Murphy appeared on behalf of Defendants. Detailed minutes of the motion hearing are annexed. (Tape #3:02-4:12.) (Syed, Sofie)

BEFORE:

PEGGY KUO
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DOCKET NO. CV-15-1264
CASE NAME:

DATE:
START TIME:
END TIME:
JUDGE:

4/13/2017
3:02 p.m.
4:12 p.m.
PKC

Torres v. New York Methodist Hospital et al.
CIVIL CONFERENCE

PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE:

Motion Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Plaintiff:
Defendants:

Steven Seltzer, Esq.
Brian Daniel Murphy, Esq.

SCHEDULINGS AND RULINGS:
1.

The Court heard argument concerning Plaintiff’s assertion of work product privilege
on non-party Gregg Perez’s Supplemental Privilege Log at [57-1] and Second Privilege
Log at [57-2], the latter including emails from Mr. Perez to Mr. Seltzer’s former email
account at the domain name “@yrsslaw.com.” The Court reviewed in camera
approximately nineteen documents from the Supplemental Privilege Log and a
selection of documents from the Second Privilege Log, and ruled as follows:
a. Documents 6, 7 and 8 on Mr. Perez’s Supplemental Privilege Log at [57-1]
are protected and thus may be withheld from production.
b. With regard to both privilege logs [57-1] and [57-2], all emails from Mr.
Seltzer to Mr. Perez are protected by the attorney work product privilege
and may be withheld from production.
c. With regard to both privilege logs [57-1] and [57-2], emails from Mr. Perez
to Mr. Seltzer are not protected by the attorney work product privilege and
shall be produced. However, to the extent that Mr. Perez’s emails reflect Mr.
Seltzer’s legal advice, such legal advice may be redacted. Where it is apparent
from the face of an email from Mr. Perez to Mr. Seltzer that the email was
sent at Mr. Seltzer’s direction or reflects Mr. Seltzer’s legal advice, such email
may be withheld from production. Where it is apparent from the face of an
email that Mr. Perez sent Mr. Seltzer documents specifically for his files,
such email may be withheld from production.
1

2.

The deadline for the close of discovery is June 21, 2017. The parties must certify to
the Court by June 22, 2017 that discovery has been completed.

3.

The parties shall file any motions for a pre-motion conference before Judge Chen by
July 6, 2017.

2