Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 13, 2020

Black Rock Truck Group, Inc. v. Tarasiewicz

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:19-cv-02367
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Black Rock Truck Group v. Tarasiewicz, Judge Davison resolved discovery disputes about confidentiality, document searches, and privilege.

Who this affects

Black Rock Truck Group, Inc., the defendants, their counsel, and the handling of the specified emails and documents.

What happened

In Black Rock Truck Group, Inc. v. Tarasiewicz, the court addressed discovery disputes raised in counsel’s letters and reviewed nine emails privately at the plaintiff’s request.

The court overruled the defendants’ objection to the plaintiff’s initial designation of its email production as “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” It also allowed defense counsel to show certain documents to defendants only in counsel’s presence, without copies or notes, and overruled the plaintiff’s objection to searching Everett Freeman’s emails.

Judge Davison sustained the plaintiff’s privilege claims for the nine reviewed emails, finding that communications with Lonestar Truck Group qualified for an employee-related exception and that an email forwarded to Candelario Bryant remained protected as attorney work product.

The detailed version

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

Case
Black Rock Truck Group, Inc. v. Tarasiewicz · No. 7:19-cv-02367
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Aug. 13, 2020

Background

After a July 29, 2020 hearing, the court ruled on discovery disputes described in counsel’s June 30 and July 7 letters. The court had also directed the plaintiff’s counsel to submit certain emails for private judicial review, and counsel did so on July 30.

Rulings

1. Attorney’s Eyes Only designation. The court overruled the defendants’ objection to the plaintiff’s initial wholesale designation of its email production as “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Based substantially on the plaintiff’s stated reasons, the court found that the procedure would promote the speedy and inexpensive determination of the action.

2. Limits on access to documents. Defense counsel could disclose the “Profit Analysis Sheets” and “Full Runs” to defendants only while counsel was present. Defendants could not make or keep copies or retain notes about those documents.

3. Everett Freeman’s emails. The court overruled the plaintiff’s objection to searching Freeman’s emails and producing responsive documents.

4. Privilege claims. The court sustained the plaintiff’s privilege claims for all nine emails submitted for private review. For communications with Lonestar Truck Group, the court found that the plaintiff had shown a contractual relationship sufficient to support an employee-related exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege. For the email forwarded to Candelario Bryant, the court found that the communication was attorney work product—a category of material prepared because of legal proceedings—and remained privileged despite being disclosed to a family member.

Disposition

The order resolved the listed discovery disputes by overruling or sustaining the specified objections and imposing the stated restrictions on access to two document categories. It did not state that the underlying action was dismissed or otherwise enter a final merits judgment.

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.