Enechi v. The City Of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-08911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Enechi v. City of New York, Judge Moses ordered limited disclosure of withheld emails, extended discovery deadlines, and allowed limited depositions.
The order affects Eucharia Enechi and the defendants, requiring the defendants to produce specified portions of withheld emails and allowing limited additional discovery.
What happened
In Enechi v. City of New York, defendants withheld four groups of emails from discovery, claiming attorney-client privilege. The court reviewed the emails privately to determine which portions were protected.
The court ruled that most email bodies could remain redacted, but required disclosure of specified headers, greetings, signature blocks, notices, and other identified text. It also found one email in the fourth group was not privileged and ordered that email produced.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered defendants to produce the emails with the permitted redactions by January 31, 2022. She extended fact discovery for limited additional depositions, extended expert discovery, and scheduled a later status conference.
The detailed version
- Enechi v. The City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08911
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
Defendants withheld four groups of emails from discovery based on attorney-client privilege. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses reviewed the emails privately under an earlier order. The court applied federal common-law principles governing attorney-client privilege in federal-question cases. Those principles protect confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal services when the privilege is claimed and has not been waived.
Rulings on the Emails
For Exhibit 1, involving emails between an attorney in the Office of General Counsel of New York City's Administration for Children's Services and agency employees, the court ruled that the email header information was not privileged and had to be produced. The bodies of the emails were properly withheld, except for specified greetings, closing language, and other identified text that could not be redacted.
For Exhibit 2, involving emails between an Administration for Children's Services employee and an attorney in its Employment Law Unit, the court likewise ruled that the header information had to be produced. The email bodies could remain redacted, except for the attorney's signature block and confidentiality notice.
For Exhibit 3, the court ruled that the header information had already been produced and that the email body was properly withheld, except for specified greeting language and the attorney's signature block, which could not be redacted.
For Exhibit 4, the court ruled that most of the email bodies could remain redacted. However, it found the October 7, 2016, 11:49 a.m. email was not privileged and ordered that it be produced. The court also required disclosure of the senders' signature blocks, an attorney's confidentiality notice, and specified text from several other emails.
Other Orders and Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses ordered defendants to produce the contested emails with the limited redactions described in the order no later than January 31, 2022. The court extended fact discovery to February 28, 2022, solely to allow the plaintiff to reopen the depositions of no more than three witnesses, for no more than three and one-half hours each, concerning documents that had still been withheld on privilege grounds when those witnesses were originally questioned. The court extended expert discovery to April 11, 2022, and scheduled the next telephone status conference for February 24, 2022. The parties also had to submit a joint status letter by February 17, 2022, addressing discovery progress and settlement efforts.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.