PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al v. BROADRIDGE INVESTOR COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [#28] IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS J. RUETER ON 9/28/16. 9/28/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a
PLAN MANAGEMENT CORP., et al.
v.
BROADRIDGE INVESTOR
COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-405

ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2016, upon consideration of plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Discovery with an accompanying memorandum of law in support thereof
(Doc. 28) (“Motion”) and defendant’s memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff’s Motion
(Doc. 30), and in accordance with the Memorandum of Decision filed today, it is hereby
ORDERED
that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

The Motion is GRANTED in so far as the court finds that defendant has

waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to the draft Marketing Agreement (Bates
stamped “BICS579 to BICS592”). Plaintiffs may depose Stephen Glantz, Esquire, and may
continue the deposition of Vincent Roux, regarding the comments made in the draft Marketing
Agreement. However, the waiver of the attorney-client privilege is limited only to the comments
within that document.
2.

The Motion is DENIED in that the court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that

defendant’s waiver of the attorney-client privilege with respect to the draft Marketing Agreement
constitutes a broad subject matter waiver of any attorney-client communications regarding the

Marketing Agreement.
3.

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to

plaintiffs’ request for in camera review of the Twenty-Four Documents. Plaintiffs may renew
this request for in camera review after the depositions of Messrs. Glantz and Roux.
4.

Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, defendant shall file an

affidavit(s) from Mr. Glantz, or any individuals it deems appropriate, to establish that the
communications in the Twenty-Four Documents were to aid in the provision of legal advice, not
business advice.

BY THE COURT:

_/s/ Thomas J. Rueter_____________________
THOMAS J. RUETER
United States Magistrate Judge

2