Leccese v. Sharestates, Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:24-cv-01060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Leccese v. Sharestates, Judge Cave partly granted and partly denied Leccese’s request to obtain emails protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.
Stephan Leccese and Sharestates, Inc.; the ruling determines which emails Sharestates must produce in their employment-related lawsuit.
What happened
In Leccese v. Sharestates, Inc., Stephan Leccese asked the court to require Sharestates to produce 12 emails it had withheld under the rule protecting confidential communications between lawyers and clients. The emails concerned employee complaints and Sharestates’ decision to terminate Leccese’s employment for cause.
After reviewing the emails privately, the court found that some contained requests for or advice about legal issues and could remain confidential. Other emails mainly described employee complaints, workplace interactions, or personnel matters and did not contain legal advice, so Sharestates had to produce them, sometimes with protected portions removed.
The court granted in part and denied in part Leccese’s motion, ordering production of Documents 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 19 with specified redactions, while allowing Sharestates to withhold Documents 11, 12, and 18. Judge Sarah L. Cave also ruled that Sharestates had not given up confidentiality for the legal advice about the employee complaints.
The detailed version
- Leccese v. Sharestates, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01060
- Loretta Preska
- May 13, 2025
Background
Stephan Leccese worked as Sharestates’ Chief Strategy & Growth Officer from October 2, 2020, until Sharestates told him on June 28, 2023, that it was terminating his employment for cause. In this case, Leccese seeks salary, bonus, and severance payments under New York common law and New York Labor Law §§ 190 and 740 et seq.
Leccese moved to compel Sharestates to produce 12 documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege. That privilege is a rule protecting confidential communications made between a client and a lawyer for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. The court reviewed the documents privately and then evaluated whether each email, or each portion of an email chain, contained protected legal communications.
Ruling
The court held that some emails were privileged because they involved Sharestates employees and outside employment counsel Ruth Kraft seeking or providing legal advice. But forwarding an ordinary report of workplace events or an employee complaint to a lawyer did not, by itself, make that underlying communication privileged. The court also held that Sharestates had not waived the privilege by relying on employee complaints to support Leccese’s termination. The court distinguished a case involving the adequacy of an internal investigation; on the present record, Leccese would receive the substance of the complaints but not necessarily Kraft’s legal advice about their significance.
The court granted in part and denied in part Leccese’s motion as follows:
Document 3
Sharestates may redact the first email, from Marie Rizk to Kraft, because it sought legal advice. Sharestates must produce the second and third emails, which described workplace events and an employee’s concerns to human-resources personnel and did not seek legal advice.
Document 5
Sharestates may redact the first three emails between Rizk and Kraft and a September 15 email from Rizk summarizing Kraft’s legal advice. Sharestates must produce the rest of the document, which primarily gathered information about an employee’s interactions with Leccese and performance review.
Document 6
Sharestates may redact the first three emails among Rizk, Kraft, and Sharestates’ chief executive officer, Allen Shayanfekr, because they concerned legal advice. It may also redact a September 24 email in which Rizk summarized Kraft’s advice. Sharestates must produce the remaining emails.
Document 7
Sharestates may redact the first five emails between Rizk and Kraft and the September 15 email summarizing legal advice. It must produce the remaining emails concerning the employee complaint and Sharestates’ response.
Document 8
Sharestates may redact the first two emails between Kraft and Rizk concerning an employee’s midyear review because they involved legal advice. It must produce the remaining emails, which did not seek or provide legal advice.
Document 9
Sharestates may redact the first six emails between Kraft and Rizk concerning an employee complaint. It must produce the two remaining emails, which were not sent to seek or provide legal advice.
Documents 11, 12, and 18
Sharestates is not required to produce these documents. The court found that the emails concerned employment-law matters and were sent to seek or provide legal advice.
Document 13
Sharestates must produce Radni Davoodi’s August 2, 2021 email because it did not seek legal advice. Sharestates may redact the attached communications from Kraft, including her investigation report, because those materials provided legal advice.
Document 15
Sharestates must produce Shayanfekr’s email to Rizk because it did not seek or provide legal advice. It may redact Kraft’s forwarded email because that email contained legal advice.
Document 19
Sharestates may redact the four emails between Kraft and Rizk concerning Leccese because they contained legal advice. It must produce the email from human-resources personnel to Rizk because that email was not sent to seek or provide legal advice.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Leccese’s motion. Sharestates was not required to produce Documents 11, 12, and 18. It was required to produce Documents 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 19 with the redactions described in the opinion.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.