Parker v. Bursor
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-00245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Parker v. Bursor, Judge Tarnofsky ordered Parker to produce withheld communications after finding she waived attorney-client privilege by authorizing disclosure.
Angelica Parker, and nonparties Carvajal and Hantman, were affected by the order requiring production of the withheld communications; the defendants sought that production.
What happened
In Parker v. Bursor, the defendants asked the court to address documents that Parker and nonparties Carvajal and Hantman had withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege. The defendants challenged whether a lawyer-client relationship existed, argued that Parker had shared the communications, invoked an exception for communications made to further wrongdoing, and claimed Parker had disclosed other documents on the same subject.
Parker said she had already produced some documents and was withholding only 19. She asked the court to privately review those documents. During a conference, Carvajal and Hantman confirmed that Parker had given them permission to turn over all their communications with her.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ruled that, even assuming Parker had an attorney-client relationship with Carvajal and Hantman, her instruction allowing disclosure waived the privilege. The court therefore required production of all withheld documents.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Bursor · No. 1:24-cv-00245
- Tarnofsky
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
The defendants filed a letter motion seeking a discovery conference about documents withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege by Plaintiff Angelica Parker and nonparties Carvajal and Hantman. The defendants argued that Parker did not have a legitimate attorney-client relationship with Carvajal or Hantman, that she had shared communications with third parties, that the communications should be disclosed under the crime-fraud exception, and that Parker had waived protection over the subject matter by producing other documents concerning it. The defendants also identified alleged deficiencies in Carvajal's and Hantman's productions.
Parker responded that she had produced several previously withheld documents and was continuing to withhold 19 documents. She asked the court to conduct an in camera review, meaning a private review by the judge. Hantman later stated that he had Parker's and her counsel's permission to turn over all communications between him and Parker. At a January 17, 2025 conference, Hantman and Carvajal each confirmed that Parker had given permission to turn over all communications with her. The court then set deadlines for those productions.
Ruling
The court assumed, for purposes of the ruling, that Parker had an attorney-client relationship with Hantman and Carvajal. It held that Parker waived the attorney-client privilege by instructing both individuals that they could produce all communications with her. The court stated that Parker therefore must produce all withheld documents.
The ruling resolved the defendants' application on waiver grounds. The opinion did not decide whether Parker actually had an attorney-client relationship with Carvajal or Hantman, and it did not separately resolve the defendants' crime-fraud, subject-matter-waiver, or production-deficiency arguments.
Effect
The order requires Parker to produce all documents she continued to withhold as protected by attorney-client privilege based on communications with Carvajal and Hantman. It also concerns the production obligations of those nonparties under the deadlines previously set by the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.