Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-07331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eletson Holdings v. Levona Holdings, Judge Liman ordered private review of some documents, but declined review of others.
Levona and Reed Smith LLP, concerning which documents Reed Smith must submit for the court’s private review.
What happened
Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al. concerns Levona’s request for private court review of 150 documents to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies. Reed Smith LLP opposed the request.
The court explained that private review should not be routine and requires facts supporting a reasonable, good-faith belief that the documents may show communications connected to a crime or fraud. The court reviewed Levona’s list of 150 documents.
Judge Liman found that Levona provided enough support to allow private review of some documents, but not all. Reed Smith must submit the remaining documents to the court by November 5, 2025; it need not submit the specifically listed documents, and the court declined to review 20 additional documents.
The detailed version
- Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al. · No. 1:23-cv-07331
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 3, 2025
Request
Levona asked the court to review 150 documents privately, meaning the judge would inspect them directly, to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies. That exception can remove attorney-client protection from communications made to advance an ongoing or contemplated crime or fraud. Reed Smith LLP opposed the request.
Legal standard
The court stated that private review should not be used automatically because doing so could undermine protection for legitimate attorney-client communications. Before ordering that review, the requesting party must provide facts sufficient to support a reasonable person’s good-faith belief that the materials may contain evidence showing that the exception applies. If that showing is made, deciding whether to conduct the review is within the district court’s discretion.
Ruling
After reviewing Levona’s log of 150 documents, Judge Liman determined that Levona made a sufficient showing for private review of some, but not all, of the listed documents. Reed Smith need not produce documents 1–2, 91–92, 97–99, 110, 114, 118–22, 125–26, 131–43, and 146–48 for review. Reed Smith must produce the remaining documents on Levona’s 150-document log to chambers by November 5, 2025. The court also declined to review a separate log of 20 additional documents. The order addressed whether review would occur; it did not state that the crime-fraud exception ultimately applies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.