Curtis et al v. Time Warner Cable Inc

Filing 78

ORDER re 62 MOTION for Protective Order, allowing Time Warner seven (7) days from the date of this order to either supply an affidavit of its in-house counsel or to withdraw its motion for protective order. Signed by the Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 05/13/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Keith Curtis and Tyneshia Brooks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

C/A No. 3:12-cv-2370-JFA

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORDER
Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership,
Defendant.

This matter is before the court on defendant Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership’s (Time Warner’s) motion for protective order. ECF No. 62.
Time Warner avers that, in response to an anticipated claim by a former employee, John Oakley,
its in-house counsel, Jamal Dawkins and Kevin Smith, directed Time Warner’s Senior Employee
Relations Manager, Julian McQueen, to conduct an investigation into Time Warner’s
compliance with wage and hours laws. Time Warner contends that the attorney-client privilege
protects its employees’ communications with Mr. McQueen made pursuant to this investigation
because Mr. McQueen was acting as an agent of Time Warner’s attorneys. See Farzan v. Wells
Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 6763570, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2012). Time Warner also argues that the
work-product doctrine protects materials generated as a result of that investigation which
document such communications. See id. at *2. Accordingly, Time Warner requests an order
from this court protecting such communications and related materials from disclosure.
If Time Warner can provide an affidavit of its in-house counsel that they directed Mr.
McQueen to conduct the subject investigation for the purpose of providing legal advice to Time
Warner, the court determines that the attorney-client privilege would protect employee
communications with Mr. McQueen pursuant to the investigation from disclosure. Likewise, if
Time Warner supplies an affidavit of its in-house counsel that any materials generated

documenting such communications were made in anticipation of litigation by Mr. Oakley, the
court determines that the work product doctrine would protect such materials from disclosure.
Time Warner is hereby given seven (7) days from the date of this order to either supply an
affidavit of its in-house counsel or to withdraw its motion for protective order. If Time Warner
files the affidavit, the court will then rule on Time Warner’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 13, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2