Chomicz v. USA
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-09859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Agnieszka Chomicz v. BDO USA, P.C., Judge Tarnofsky denied BDO’s reconsideration motion, leaving in place an order requiring production of four documents.
Agnieszka Chomicz and BDO USA, P.C.; the ruling concerns BDO’s obligation to produce four documents identified on its privilege log.
What happened
In Agnieszka Chomicz v. BDO USA, P.C., BDO asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that required production of two identical emails and two identical attachments from BDO’s privilege log.
BDO argued that the documents were protected because internal counsel directed their preparation, the documents described legal advice, and they confirmed that the documents followed that advice. The court disagreed, explaining that a document is not protected merely because a lawyer directed its preparation.
United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ruled that the internal counsel’s directions were basic administrative instructions for completing a tracking form, not legal advice. She therefore denied BDO’s motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Chomicz v. USA · No. 1:24-cv-09859
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
The court was considering BDO USA, P.C.’s motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is a request for the court to revisit an earlier ruling because it allegedly overlooked information that could reasonably change the result. The earlier ruling had granted in part and denied in part Agnieszka Chomicz’s request for production of documents identified on BDO’s privilege log. A privilege log lists documents a party withholds from discovery and the claimed basis for withholding them.
The earlier order required BDO to produce two identical email messages, identified as Documents 3 and 4, and two identical attachments, identified as Documents 9 and 10.
Parties’ Positions
BDO asked the court to reconsider the production ruling. It argued that the four documents were “predominantly of a legal character” because internal counsel directed their preparation, the documents described legal advice given during an earlier privileged conversation, and the documents confirmed that they were drafted in accordance with that advice.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected BDO’s argument. It explained that preparing a document at the direction of counsel does not by itself make the document privileged. Communications between corporate employees remain unprotected when they are merely business-related or technical, even if an attorney recommended or directed their preparation.
The court further determined that, to the extent the documents reflected advice from internal counsel, that advice was not legal advice. Instead, the internal counsel had provided basic administrative directions about how to complete a tracking form.
Disposition
United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky denied BDO’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion therefore left in place the earlier order requiring production of Documents 3, 4, 9, and 10.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.