Bulgari v. Bulgari

Background

On March 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied Veronica Bulgari’s motion to compel Ilaria Bulgari to produce documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege. The documents involved communications with Ilaria’s former counsel, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP.

Veronica objected to that order. She argued that Ilaria had waived the attorney-client privilege by bringing malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the law firm. According to Veronica, those claims placed legal advice “at issue” in both the law-firm dispute and this litigation. Ilaria responded that the law-firm dispute was limited to immigration and tax advice, that no privileged materials in this case had been placed at issue, and that any waiver should be narrowly limited.

Legal standard

Because the motion to compel was a non-dispositive discovery matter, the district court could change the magistrate judge’s ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made despite supporting evidence. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant law or procedural rules. Magistrate judges receive substantial deference on these matters.

New York law governed the privilege question. Under that law, an “at issue” waiver generally occurs when a party affirmatively relies on privileged communications to prove a claim or defense and applying the privilege would deprive the opposing party of important information. The mere fact that a privileged communication contains information relevant to disputed issues does not, by itself, place the communication at issue.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Veronica’s argument that the waiver extended to all trust-related communications listed on the law firm’s privilege log. The cited case law did not support extending the waiver beyond the specific communications disclosed in the law-firm proceeding.

The court also rejected the argument that advice from Robert Sheehan, a Curtis-Mallet partner and former co-trustee of the Ilaria Trust, was automatically placed at issue. The court found that Ilaria did not need the privileged documents to prove her claims in either proceeding. Therefore, the law-firm claims did not waive privilege over information that was relevant to, and claimed as privileged in, this litigation.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield held that Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court ordered that Veronica Bulgari’s objections to the March 18, 2025, order be overruled.