Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-03975
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Stanan v. Mt. Hawley, Judge Schofield held reconsideration of a privilege-discovery order in abeyance and set deadlines for evidence and responses.
Stanan, the defendants, and the nonparties whose communications and documents were involved in the privilege and discovery dispute, including HDG and Baldwin.
What happened
Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company concerns whether communications involving non-attorney third parties were protected from discovery. An earlier order directed production of documents withheld under attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or other protections.
Stanan timely asked the court to reconsider that earlier order. The court said reconsideration is generally limited to a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or serious unfairness, and is not meant to give a party another chance to argue old issues.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield held the motion for reconsideration in abeyance rather than granting or denying it. She allowed Stanan to submit sworn evidence by February 10, 2025, about whether certain Hotel Development and Management Group representatives, including Billy Gilchrist, acted as Stanan’s agents, allowed defendants to respond by February 17, and postponed related privilege-log deadlines.
The detailed version
- Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-03975
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 5, 2025
Background
On January 30, 2025, the court granted defendants’ letter motion for discovery. It directed Stanan and all third parties to produce documents previously withheld based on attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or another privilege or protection when those documents reflected communications between Stanan and non-attorney third parties. The earlier order concluded that Stanan had not provided enough evidence to show that Hotel Development and Management Group, LLC (HDG) acted as Stanan’s agent for purposes of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The order also referred to communications involving HDG and Baldwin Group Southwest Inc.
Motion for Reconsideration
On February 4, 2025, Stanan timely moved for reconsideration of the January 30 order. Reconsideration is a request for the court to revisit an earlier decision. The court explained that this relief is available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. It also stated that reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting new theories, or seeking a second opportunity to argue the case. The court further noted that parties generally may not rely on new arguments or evidence that they could have presented before the earlier decision.
Order
The court held Stanan’s motion for reconsideration in abeyance, meaning it postponed deciding the motion while allowing additional submissions. By February 10, 2025, Stanan could submit evidence supporting a finding that certain HDG representatives, such as Billy Gilchrist, served as Stanan’s agents for purposes of invoking attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, or another privilege or protection. The court specified that the evidence should consist of sworn statements from witnesses with firsthand knowledge, or documents accompanied by sworn statements establishing their authenticity. The court gave defendants until February 17, 2025, to respond with argument or evidence and allowed them to request cross-examination of an affiant or declarant if they explained why it was needed.
The court also postponed, without setting a new date, Stanan’s February 5 deadline to provide revised privilege logs and defendants’ February 7 deadline to file a letter about objections to those logs. Those deadlines were postponed pending resolution of the issues raised in Stanan’s February 10, 2025, letter.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.