Atlantic Wireless, Inc. v. Stellar Connections, Inc. et al
Filing
27
ORDER denying 24 : see attached Order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 8/25/2014.c/ecf (Johnston, Linda)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
ATLANTIC WIRELESS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
CV 13-6208 (JFB)(ARL)
-againstSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the court is the defendants’ application seeking to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena,
which aims to depose Sabina Dhillon, Esq. (“Dhillon”), the attorney that represented them in
their transactional matters related to their business dealings with the plaintiff. Dhillon drafted the
non-binding memorandum of understanding and at least five versions of a proposed asset
purchase agreement at the heart of this matter. Dhillon also negotiated on the defendants’ behalf
and performed due diligence for the defendants in connection with the agreement. Although the
court agrees that many of the communications between Dhillon and the defendants would be
protected by privilege, the court cannot rule in advance on this issue as questions that may be
posed during the deposition may also seek non-privileged responses.
Accordingly, the motion is denied. If disputes arise during the deposition regarding
whether or not information is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the plaintiff may submit
an application to the court setting forth the specific questions that were asked, the objections that
were made, and its good faith basis for believing that the assertion of privilege was not
appropriate.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
August 25, 2014
SO ORDERED:
________/s/________________
ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge
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?