Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Insurance Company
Filing
105
ORDER granting 95 Motion for Hearing; granting 98 Motion to Compel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 2/7/2020. (Gold, Steven)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
MADELAINE CHOCOLATE NOVELTIES, INC., :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE CO.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
GOLD, STEVEN M., U.S. Magistrate Judge:
MEMORANDUM &
ORDER
15-CV-5830 (RJD) (SMG)
INTRODUCTION
Two discovery motions are currently pending before the Court. In the first, defendant
Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) contests certain assertions of attorneyclient privilege by plaintiff Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine”). In the second,
Great Northern seeks leave to serve two non-parties with subpoenas for documents. This
Memorandum and Order addresses each in turn.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Great Northern’s letter motion dated January 13, 2020 contends that Madelaine
improperly withheld documents on grounds of attorney-client privilege because the
communications involved Madelaine’s employee Scott Wright, who was not an attorney at the
time the communications took place. Def. Ltr. dated Jan. 13, 2020, Dkt. 95. It is undisputed that
Mr. Wright graduated from law school in 1981 and worked as a law firm associate or in-house
counsel until 1989. Scott Wright LinkedIn Profile, Def. Ltr. dated Jan. 13, 2020, Ex. D, Dkt. 954. It is also undisputed that Wright held positions as a financial analyst and vice president for
investor relations and did not practice law from 1990 until he was hired by Madelaine twelve
years later, in 2002. Id. It appears that Wright allowed his membership in the New York State
bar to expire in 1999, three years before he accepted a position with Madelaine. Record of New
York State Unified Court System, Def. Ltr. dated Jan. 13, 2020, Ex. E, Dkt. 95-5.
A party seeking to protect a communication from disclosure by invoking the attorneyclient privilege must generally establish that the communication was with a person who is a
member of the bar of a court. Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 2011 WL 9375, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2011). The question posed by Great Northern’s motion is whether
communications with a law school graduate who practiced law years ago, but who was not a
member of any bar at the time of the communications, may nevertheless be protected as
privileged.
The answer at least arguably depends on whether the case in which the privilege is
asserted is governed by federal or New York state law. One court, in a case governed by New
York law, has held that an individual may assert the privilege with respect to communications
with a person that the individual reasonably believed to be an attorney, but that a corporation
such as Madelaine must demonstrate that it diligently investigated the attorney’s status before it
may invoke the attorney-client privilege with respect to communications with someone who
turns out not to be a member of a bar. See Financial Technologies Int’l v. Smith, 2000 WL
1855131, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2000) (holding, under New York law, that “even if New York
would apply the reasonable belief exception to individuals, corporations would have to make
sure their attorneys are in fact attorneys”). In Gucci America, however, the court questioned the
holding in Financial Technologies and concluded that even a corporation may assert the
attorney-client privilege with respect to communications with someone it reasonably believed to
be an attorney but who in fact was not. 2011 WL 9375, at *5. Gucci America, though, was
decided under federal law, and its holding is therefore not in direct conflict with the one reached
in Financial Technologies.
2
This is a diversity jurisdiction case involving a claim of breach of contract under New
York law. See generally Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 752 F.
App’x 47 (2d Cir. 2018). Accordingly, questions of privilege are governed by New York law.
F. R. Evid. 501. As discussed above, the limited relevant case law leaves in doubt whether,
under New York law, a corporation may successfully invoke privilege regarding its
communications with someone it reasonably believes to be an attorney, or only as to
communications with someone whose status as an attorney it has diligently investigated. I need
not resolve this question, though, because I conclude that Madelaine fails to satisfy even the
lower of the two potentially applicable standards; that is, I conclude that Madelaine could not
reasonably have believed that Scott Wright was an active member of the bar when it hired him in
2002.
Norman Gold, a Madelaine Vice President, testified at a deposition of Madelaine
conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on March 26, 2019. Gold Tr., Pl. Ltr. dated Jan.
17, 2020, Ex. A, Dkt. 96-1. At that deposition, Gold stated that Scott Wright is his brother-inlaw—and has been since before Madelaine hired Wright—and displayed general knowledge
about Wright’s professional background. Gold Tr. at 39:7–41:9. Gold further testified that
Wright was hired because Madelaine “had some administrative functions that needed direct
supervision.” Gold Tr. 41:10–13. Scott Wright was deposed as well. Wright Tr., Def. Ltr. dated
Jan. 13, 2020, Ex. C, Dkt. 95-3; Def. Ltr. dated Feb. 3, 2020, Ex. 1, Dkt. 101. Scott testified that
his title upon being hired by Madelaine was “director of corporate development.” Wright Tr.
50:15–22. Wright further testified that, although he initially also referred to himself as general
counsel, he stopped and did not use “esquire” when signing his name. Wright Tr. 25:9–26:3.
Scott described his responsibilities after he was hired as “help[ing] with the way the systems
inside the business, how do we operate, trying to create a little more discipline in this family
3
business.” Wright Tr. 51:18–22. Wright currently serves as Madelaine’s chief administrative
officer, a title he has held for approximately the past eight years. Wright Tr. 51:24–52:5.
A party invoking the attorney-client privilege bears the burden of establishing that the
privilege applies. See Universal Standard Inc. v. Target Corp., 331 F.R.D. 80, 86 (S.D.N.Y.
2019); Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Based upon
the facts described above, I conclude that Madelaine has failed to meet its burden of proving that
Madelaine reasonably believed that Wright was a member of the bar at the time of the
communications in issue.
When Wright was hired, Madelaine’s principal Norman Gold was his brother-in-law and
generally familiar with Wright’s professional career. To the extent Gold did not know of
Wright’s professional experience, Madelaine almost certainly would have asked Wright for a
resume or a list of the prior positions he had held. It is accordingly reasonable to conclude that
Madelaine knew when Wright was hired that he had not practiced law for more than a decade.
Moreover, Wright was hired as a “director of corporate development,” and his responsibilities
involved management rather than handling legal matters. Although when he was first hired
Wright referred to himself as general counsel, he stopped doing so at some point thereafter.
Wright did not provide a date by which he stopped referring to himself as general counsel, but it
is likely he did so well before the events at issue; Wright was hired in 2002, and Superstorm
Sandy, which gave rise to this lawsuit, took place a decade later in 2012. Finally, for the last
eight years, and since about the time of Sandy, Wright has held the title of chief administrative
officer.
For the reasons stated above, Madelaine has failed to meet its burden to establish that it
reasonably believed Wright was a practicing member of a bar at the time of the communications
at issue. Accordingly, Madelaine shall promptly identify any communications it has withheld on
4
the basis of attorney-client privilege solely because of Wright’s participation in those
communications. Madelaine shall disclose any communications in this category to Great
Northern no later than February 21, 2020.
SUBPOENAS TO NON-PARTIES
Great Northern’s second motion seeks leave to serve two non-parties with document
subpoenas and to do so after the current discovery deadline of January 31, 2020. Def. Ltr. dated
Jan. 27, 2020, Dkt. 98. According to Great Northern, Madelaine was attempting to obtain
financing for its business operations from these non-parties before its building was damaged by
Superstorm Sandy. Id. at 2.
I conducted a telephone conference to discuss Great Northern’s motion on February 3,
2020. Conference Transcript (“Conf. Tr.”), Dkt. 104. During that conference, counsel for Great
Northern argued that information sought by the subpoenas is relevant because Madelaine is
seeking to recover damages for business interruption. Conf. Tr. at 5:21–6:19. Madelaine did not
contend during the telephone conference or in its opposition letter that the information Great
Northern seeks by way of these subpoenas is irrelevant or beyond the scope of discovery
permitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Pl. Ltr. dated Jan. 31, 2020, Dkt. 100.
Rather, Madelaine’s primary arguments in opposition to the motion are that it has already
produced sufficient information about its financial condition and that Great Northern’s
application is untimely.
The information sought is plainly relevant to Madelaine’s claim for damages. With
respect to the untimeliness of the subpoenas, Great Northern contends that it was expecting
Madelaine to provide more complete information about its applications for financing. Great
Northern further contends that it learned about these applications only after other non-parties
produced documents in response to subpoenas it served previously. Although Madelaine
5
contests Great Northern’s version of events in certain respects, it is clear that any delay by Great
Northern will not meaningfully prejudice Madelaine because there is no imminent trial date. See
Order of United States District Judge Dearie entered on February 6, 2020. Because the
information sought by the subpoenas Great Northern seeks to serve is likely to be relevant, and
because Madelaine will not be prejudiced if the subpoenas are served, Great Northern’s motion
is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Great Northern’s motion to compel disclosure of
communications withheld on the ground that Madelaine reasonably believed Scott Wright to be a
licensed attorney is granted, and Great Northern’s motion for leave to serve document subpoenas
on two non-parties is granted as well.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by
Steven M. Gold
Date: 2020.02.07
10:45:46 -05'00'
Brooklyn, New York
February 7, 2020
Steven M. Gold
United States Magistrate Judge
U:\#Clerk Files\Decisions 2020\Madelaine v. Chocolate Novelties 15-CV-5830.docm
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?