Hunter v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, L.L.C. et al

Filing 101

OPINION AND ORDER re: 77 LETTER MOTION for Local Rule 37.2 Conference to Enforce Subpoena Against Non-Party TrakAmerica addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Ahmad Keshavarz dated 10/11/2018. filed by Patricia Hunter. With these prece dents in mind, the Court has reviewed the privilege logs and the debt collection notes that were submitted for in camera review. It finds that the S&L Defendants have properly invoked the privileges for: the exchange between Scott Sharinn and Brett S cher on January 22, 2017, for the entry by Adam Oppenheimer on November 10, 2010, and for all entries in the log on and after January 8, 2016. The Court also finds that Palisades has appropriately invoked the privileges on the privilege log for: the second entry for May 30, 2007, the second entry for March 7, 2007, the only entry for February 20, 2007, the entries by FTB and SYS for November 21, 2006, the only entry for November 9, 2006, and the entries by SHC for November 8, 2006. Other than th e entries described above, the privileges do not apply. The S&L Defendants and Palisades are directed to produce in an unredacted fashion each of the documents listed on the privilege logs, except those specifically listed above, by January 30, 2019. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 77. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/22/2019) (kv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICIA HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
- against PALISADES ACQUISTION XVI, LLC,
SHARINN & LIPSHIE, P.C., and HARVEY
SHARINN,

OPINION AND ORDER
16 Civ. 8779 (ER)

Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.:
Pursuant to the Court’s October 16, 2018 order, Sharinn & Lipshie, Harvey Sharinn
(“S&L Defendants”) and Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, (“Palisades”) submitted privilege logs
and debt collection notes to the Court for in camera review. Defendants have invoked the
attorney-client and work-product privileges as reasons for withholding production.
“The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and
counsel made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance.” In re Cty. of Erie, 473
F.3d 413, 418 (2d Cir. 2007). “A party invoking the attorney-client privilege must show (1) a
communication between client and counsel that (2) was intended to be and was in fact kept
confidential, and (3) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.” Id. at
419.
For the work-product privilege, “a document will be protected if, in light of the nature of
the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to
have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” Schaeffler v. United
States, 806 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).