Connell v. Burlington Coat Factory
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-07495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Connell v. Burlington Coat Factory, Judge Engelmayer ordered production of two accident reports and denied a privilege-log request as moot.
Margaret Connell received an order requiring defendants to produce two accident-report pages. Defendants were not required by this order to produce the remaining materials reviewed by the court, and their request to withhold the two accident reports as protected work product was rejected.
What happened
In Connell v. Burlington Coat Factory, Margaret Connell sought two documents described as accident reports from defendants. The court had extended fact discovery after the parties missed the original deadlines.
Defendants argued that the reports were protected because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. After reviewing the documents privately, the court found that the reports were standard descriptions created on the day of the accident and did not reveal legal opinions or litigation strategies.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted Connell’s request to compel production of pages 3 through 12 of the “GB Combined File.” He did not order production of the other reviewed materials and denied as moot Connell’s request for a more detailed privilege log.
The detailed version
- Connell v. Burlington Coat Factory · No. 1:21-cv-07495
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 13, 2022
Background
The court’s case-management plan required the parties to request documents by December 3, 2021, and complete fact discovery by March 2, 2022. Margaret Connell served her first document request on February 4, 2022, including a request for accident reports. Defendants objected to producing responsive materials, asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product protection because the materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation.
The court later extended the fact-discovery deadline to May 2, 2022, and directed the parties to brief a dispute over accident reports identified in defendants’ disclosures but withheld. Connell moved to compel production of two documents: a Burlington Customer Accident Alert email dated August 11, 2018, and a Burlington Stores, Inc. NetClaim General Liability Report. The court reviewed the withheld materials privately.
Legal standard
Work-product protection generally covers documents or tangible things prepared because of the prospect of litigation by or for a party or its representative. It does not cover documents prepared in the ordinary course of business or documents that would have been created in essentially the same form regardless of litigation.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that much of the withheld claim-file material appeared to have been prepared with litigation in mind. Those materials discussed issues such as defendants’ potential liability and expected claim and settlement values, and the court stated that defendants properly withheld them to the extent Connell sought them.
The two accident reports at issue were different. The court found that they appeared to be standard accident reports generated on the day of Connell’s accident, before defendants could have been on notice of this lawsuit. They described the accident and basic circumstances, including its location and surrounding conditions, but did not disclose mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories. The court therefore found that they likely would have been created regardless of the prospect of litigation and were not protected work product.
Disposition
The court granted Connell’s motion to compel production of the accident reports and ordered defendants to promptly produce pages 3 through 12 of the 59-page PDF titled “GB Combined File.” The court did not order production of the remaining materials submitted for private review and noted that Connell did not appear to seek the claim file created by the third-party administrator. The court denied as moot Connell’s additional request for a revised privilege log. The order was signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer and dated April 13, 2022.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.