Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2020

Oorah, Inc. v. Kane Kessler, P.C.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:17-cv-07175
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Oorah v. Kane Kessler, Judge Engelmayer permitted disclosure of certain attorney-client communications and granted a 30-day deposition-discovery extension.

Who this affects

Defendants Kane Kessler, P.C., Covista Communications, Inc., and Birch Communications, Inc.; plaintiff Oorah, Inc.; and the parties’ deposition-discovery schedule.

What happened

In Oorah, Inc. v. Kane Kessler, P.C., the parties jointly asked the court to allow defendants to disclose communications between Kane Kessler and its clients, Covista Communications and Birch Communications, concerning the underlying litigation.

The court said Covista and Birch had previously approved disclosure of related emails, which were then provided to Oorah. It also found disclosure warranted to help defendants address the intent element of Oorah’s claim under New York Judiciary Law § 487. The communications would be marked confidential under the parties’ protective order.

Judge Engelmayer permitted defendants to disclose relevant communications among Kane Kessler, Covista, and Birch, and granted the parties’ joint request for a 30-day extension of the deposition-discovery deadline. Depositions had to be completed by August 31, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Oorah, Inc. v. Kane Kessler, P.C. · No. 1:17-cv-07175
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
July 20, 2020

Background

The parties jointly requested an order allowing the defendants to disclose attorney-client communications between Kane Kessler, P.C., and its clients Covista Communications, Inc., and Birch Communications, Inc., related to the underlying litigation. The request was made in connection with Oorah’s claim that the defendants violated New York Judiciary Law § 487.

Court’s reasoning

The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client. The court found that Covista and Birch had previously approved disclosure of emails concerning Kane Kessler’s representation of them, and that those communications had been provided to Oorah. Based on that disclosure, the court concluded that Covista and Birch had waived the privilege as to those communications.

The parties also represented that disclosure was necessary to address the intent element of Oorah’s claim. Section 487(1) requires intent to deceive the court or a party. The court cited New York’s professional-conduct rules, which allow a lawyer to reveal confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to defend against an accusation of wrongful conduct. The court found disclosure to facilitate the defendants’ defense warranted.

The court further noted that the communications would be designated “Confidential” under the parties’ protective order, which would minimize potential harm to Covista and Birch.

Disposition

The court permitted defendants to disclose relevant communications between Kane Kessler, Covista, and Birch related to the underlying litigation. Because of the delay caused by the privilege issue, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the parties’ joint request for a 30-day extension of the deposition-discovery deadline. The court ordered that depositions be completed by August 31, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.