Geodis USA, LLC v. Turn 5, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-08671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Geodis USA v. Turn 5, Judge Lehrburger denied Turn 5’s discovery request as moot after Geodis made representations.
Geodis USA, LLC and Turn 5, Inc.; the order resolved Turn 5’s motion seeking discovery from Geodis.
What happened
Geodis USA, LLC v. Turn 5, Inc. concerns Turn 5’s request for information and documents that Geodis had gathered while responding to a May 18, 2023 email. Turn 5 said the information was important to its defenses. Geodis’s lawyer objected to questions about the email and the search for responsive materials, asserting privilege.
Turn 5 asked the court to require Geodis to say whether it found documents or facts responsive to three subjects identified in the email and to produce them. The filing argued that underlying facts and pre-existing business documents are not protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege merely because lawyers requested or reviewed them.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the motion as moot based on representations made at docket entry 44. The available opinion text does not explain those representations or otherwise rule on the privilege arguments.
The detailed version
- Geodis USA, LLC v. Turn 5, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08671
- Andrew Carter
- June 23, 2025
Background
Turn 5, Inc. asked the court to compel Geodis USA, LLC to provide information and documents allegedly withheld on privilege grounds. The request concerned a May 18, 2023 email from Geodis’s corporate deposition representative, Andrea Barzana, to a Geodis customer-service representative. The email sought backup information concerning a canceled call, communications about monthly forecasts, and a change in allocation. Geodis produced the email and did not label it privileged.
At Barzana’s deposition, Turn 5 attempted to ask about the email. According to Turn 5’s filing, Geodis’s attorney objected because the inquiry related to a request made by counsel. Barzana answered some limited questions but refused to answer others, and Geodis’s attorney also objected to questions about the results of the search for responsive information.
Parties’ positions
Turn 5 argued that the existence of responsive documents and the underlying facts were not privileged. It also argued that pre-existing business records do not become protected work product merely because they were collected at a lawyer’s direction. Turn 5 requested an order requiring Geodis to state whether responsive documents or facts were found and to produce or disclose them.
The available text is a letter submitted on Turn 5’s behalf, followed by the court’s disposition. It does not include a separate response from Geodis or explain the representations referenced by the court.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the motion as moot in light of the representations made at docket entry 44. The order does not identify those representations, state whether Geodis had to produce any materials, or decide the privilege issues on their merits. Because the ruling resolved a discovery motion, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.