Adams-Flores v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-12150
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Adams-Flores v. City of New York, Judge Parker ruled on privilege objections during discovery, requiring review and production of some withheld documents.
The parties to the case, particularly defendants, who must reassess the remaining privilege assertions and produce any documents that should be disclosed under the court's rulings.
What happened
In Nichole Adams-Flores v. City of New York, the parties had several discovery disagreements. The remaining dispute concerned whether defendants had improperly withheld documents as protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege. The court asked plaintiff to identify documents for private judicial review.
The court reviewed the submitted documents and found that many were properly withheld, but a few were not. The attached chart identified documents that were improperly withheld or improperly redacted, as well as documents for which the privilege or redaction was proper.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered defendants to reconsider the remaining documents on their privilege log and produce any documents that should be disclosed under the ruling and the conference discussions by March 14, 2022.
The detailed version
- Adams-Flores v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-12150
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
The court held a case-management conference on February 11, 2022, addressing discovery disputes identified in ECF No. 140. The last unresolved dispute involved plaintiff's request for private judicial review of documents that defendants claimed were protected from disclosure.
The asserted protections were the attorney-client privilege, which generally protects confidential communications seeking or providing legal advice, and the work-product doctrine, which generally protects materials prepared for litigation. The court directed plaintiff to identify ten documents from defendants' privilege log for review. Defendants submitted those documents and a privilege log on February 16, 2022.
Ruling
After reviewing the documents, the court found that many had been properly withheld as privileged, but that a few had not. The attached chart stated the following determinations:
- Document Priv-WIF-00001 was improperly withheld because it concerned the physical sending of documents and did not discuss, reflect, or request legal advice or work prepared at counsel's direction. - Documents Priv-WIF-00008 and Priv-WIF-00009 were properly withheld because they involved requesting legal review of a draft letter or providing a draft letter to counsel for legal review. - Document Priv-WIF-00016 was improperly withheld because the correspondence did not request, repeat, or reflect legal advice. - The redactions on Priv-Redact-00004 and Priv-Redact-00009, Priv-Redact-00016, Priv-Redact-00017, Priv-Redact-00029, and Priv-Redact-0031 were found proper, while the redaction on Priv-Redact-00006 was improper because the communication sought factual clarification rather than legal advice or strategy.
Effect of the Order
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker directed defendants to review their privilege assertions on the remaining documents in the log, identify any additional documents that should be produced under the court's rulings and the conference discussions, and produce those documents by March 14, 2022. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the parties' entire case or all discovery disputes.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.