Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy et al

Filing 193

OPINION AND ORDER: Safety Today is ordered to produce to Defendants copies of the same documents which it submitted for in camera inspection within seven (7) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 6/11/2014. (kk2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Safety Today, Inc.,

:

Plaintiff,

:
:

Susan Roy, et al.,
Defendants.

JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

:

v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-510
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:
OPINION AND ORDER

On October 11, 2013, the undersigned ruled that the
attorney-client privilege did not protect documents relating to
Safety Today’s preparation and mailing of a letter to its
customers which, according to the Defendants’ counterclaim,
misrepresented the substance of Judge Watson’s October 12, 2012
preliminary injunction order.

Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, 2013 WL

5597065 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 11, 2013).
to reconsider that ruling.
motion.

See Doc. 191.

Safety Today filed a motion

Judge Watson subsequently denied the

In his order, Judge Watson ordered Safety

Today to “deliver the withheld documents to the Magistrate Judge
for in camera inspection within SEVEN DAYS of this Order.”

Doc.

191, at 8-9.
The documents in question were timely delivered on May 23,
2014.

The Court has now reviewed them.

The purpose of the

Court’s review was to determine if the documents are relevant to
the counterclaim - and, more specifically, if they are relevant
to the assertion that sending the customer letter constituted
tortious interference.

The relevance standard applied by the

Court in its review is the familiar one from Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1):

in order for these documents to be produced to the

Defendants, they must be “relevant to any party's claim or

defense” and “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.”
How the letter was drafted, who participated in the drafting
or provided input, and what input was given, are all relevant
issues.

Having reviewed the documents in question (none of which

bear Bates numbers), the Court concludes that each of them
satisfies the criteria listed in Rule 26(b)(1).

They document

the initial concept of a customer letter (which was first
discussed almost two months before Judge Watson’s ruling), the
drafting process of the letter which forms the basis of the
tortious interference counterclaim, the input provided by various
individuals, the stated purpose of sending the letter, and how
the final version was decided upon.

Because all of these

documents are relevant, and because this Court has ruled that
none of them are protected by the attorney-client privilege,
Defendants are entitled to them.

Safety Today is therefore

ordered to produce to Defendants, within seven days, copies of
the same documents which it submitted for in camera inspection.
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt.
I., F., 5.

The motion must specifically designate the order or

part in question and the basis for any objection.

Responses to

objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter.
The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set
aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the
filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge
or District Judge.

S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
-2-

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-