Chomicz v. USA
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-09859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Chomicz v. BDO USA, P.C., Judge Tarnofsky partly granted and partly denied Chomicz’s request to compel privileged documents.
Agnieszka Chomicz received access to nine specified documents or portions of documents, while BDO USA, P.C. was allowed to continue withholding the remaining documents under the asserted privilege protections.
What happened
In Agnieszka Chomicz v. BDO USA, P.C., Chomicz asked the court to require BDO USA, P.C. to produce 20 documents that BDO had withheld based on attorney-client privilege and, for some documents, the work-product doctrine.
The court ordered BDO to produce Documents 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, and 20, including an unredacted version of Document 19. It upheld BDO’s withholding of the other documents because they involved legal advice, requests for legal advice, preparation for mediation, or related legal materials.
United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted Chomicz’s request in part and denied it in part after reviewing the documents privately and examining BDO’s privilege log.
The detailed version
- Chomicz v. USA · No. 1:24-cv-09859
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Agnieszka Chomicz, the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case, sought production of 20 documents or portions of documents that BDO USA, P.C. withheld under the attorney-client privilege and, in some instances, the work-product doctrine. The court required BDO to submit the documents for private judicial review, along with its privilege log.
Legal standard
The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made between a client and a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. The party asserting the privilege must show that the privilege applies and was not waived. The court explained that merely sending a document to a lawyer does not make the document privileged; the document must contain a confidential communication relating to legal advice.
Document-by-document rulings
- Document 1: The redacted email from internal to external counsel, prepared in anticipation of mediation, was properly withheld. Communications among business people in the attachments were properly produced. - Documents 2 and 17: Notes by internal counsel concerning conversations with employees seeking legal advice about complaints against Hurwitz were properly withheld. - Documents 3 and 9: Emails about preparing entries for a human-resources investigation log did not seek or contain legal advice and had to be produced. - Documents 4 and 10: Templates for human-resources log entries did not seek or contain legal advice and had to be produced. - Documents 5, 6, 7, 14, and 15: Emails arranging a meeting for internal counsel to provide legal advice were properly withheld. - Document 8: An email requesting a meeting for internal counsel to provide legal advice was properly withheld. - Documents 11, 12, and 13: Emails sending information to internal legal counsel for a call seeking legal advice did not themselves seek or contain legal advice, and had to be produced. - Document 16: A memo from internal counsel to BDO’s board of directors providing legal advice about terminating Hurwitz was properly withheld. - Document 18: A document-retention notice sent by internal counsel to employees was properly withheld. - Document 19: An email exchange among human-resources employees conveyed factual information shared by internal counsel and had to be produced without redactions. - Document 20: An email listing employees who were to be terminated, and containing a version of Documents 12 and 13, did not seek or contain legal advice and had to be produced.
Disposition
The court granted in part Chomicz’s application to compel production. BDO was required to produce, or produce in unredacted form, Documents 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, and 20. The court denied in part the application as to the remaining documents.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.