Citibank, N.A. v. Law Office of Rachel Zamata, LLC

Background

The defendant, Law Office of Rachel Zamata, LLC, submitted a letter motion seeking to seal Citibank’s letter motion, identified as ECF 80, and the defendant’s own letter, identified as ECF 83. The defendant also asked the Court to reject Citibank’s request for supplemental discovery. The letter states that discovery had closed on August 21, 2020.

The defendant argued that the filings referred to communications between Rachel Zamata and Steven Djicdjor that had been marked confidential under a June 9, 2020 protective order. It asserted that some or all of the emails might involve attorney-client communications, although it also stated that no forensic investigation had determined whether the person communicating with Zamata was Djicdjor or someone impersonating him. The defendant argued that public disclosure could create a risk of later claims against Zamata.

Discovery dispute

The defendant argued that Citibank’s supplemental discovery request was untimely because Citibank had received the relevant email production on June 10, 2020, but did not seek the additional material until after discovery had closed. The defendant also argued that the requested materials concerned a different check—one drawn by AM Parts Johnstone Supply on Citizens Bank—rather than the check at issue in the lawsuit. According to the defendant’s letter, the checks involved different amounts, the other check was not deposited at Citibank, and it was not drawn on Citibank.

The opinion text recounts the defendant’s arguments but does not state a final ruling on Citibank’s supplemental discovery request.

Order

Judge Ona T. Wang directed the parties to meet and confer by January 7, 2021, about whether the material at issue was covered by the protective order. The parties were directed to file a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining their positions.

To the extent the defendant’s sealing request was based on attorney-client privilege, the Court denied that request. The Clerk was directed to make ECF 80 and ECF 83 viewable only to the parties and the Court while the Court considered whether the filings should ultimately be sealed. The order therefore imposed interim restricted access but did not state a final ruling that the filings would be sealed.