Ramchandani v. CitiBank National Association
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-09124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramchandani v. CitiBank National Association, Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered Citi to explain possible privilege waiver and submit annotated chats while considering a discovery motion.
Rohan Ramchandani and the Citi entities involved in the discovery dispute, including Citigroup Inc., Citicorp LLC, and Citibank, N.A.
What happened
In Ramchandani v. CitiBank National Association, Rohan Ramchandani asked the court to require Citi to produce memoranda about meetings with the U.S. Department of Justice. Citi had withheld the memoranda based on attorney-client privilege and protection for materials prepared by lawyers for litigation.
After reviewing the memoranda privately, the court noted that one referred to annotated chats that outside counsel had discussed with the Justice Department. Because that discussion might affect whether the chats and memoranda were protected, and whether Ramchandani needed the memoranda to prepare his case, the court ordered Citi to explain why protection had not been waived, submit the annotated chats for the court’s private review, and allowed Ramchandani to respond.
The order did not finally decide the discovery motion. It set deadlines and scheduled a telephone conference, as ordered by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The detailed version
- Ramchandani v. CitiBank National Association · No. 1:19-cv-09124
- Victor Marrero
- June 4, 2022
Background
Rohan Ramchandani filed a letter motion seeking an order requiring Citigroup Inc., Citicorp LLC, and Citibank, N.A., collectively called “Citi,” to produce materials. The requested materials included memoranda concerning meetings with the U.S. Department of Justice. Citi withheld the memoranda based on attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, which can protect confidential lawyer-client communications and materials prepared by a lawyer for litigation.
The court conducted a private review of the memoranda. One memorandum, identified as Document 19, referred to “annotated chats” discussed by outside counsel, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, with the Justice Department. Citi stated that the annotated chats had not been shown or submitted to the Justice Department, that the annotations were Citi’s counsel’s protected work product, and that Citi had not produced the chats to Ramchandani. But Document 19 stated that, at a meeting attended by the Justice Department, counsel “walked the group through the annotations” for many chats.
Order
The court stated that whether Citi could be required to produce the annotated chats might affect its decision on whether Ramchandani had a substantial need for the memoranda to prepare his case and could not obtain their equivalent through other means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3).
The court ordered Citi to file a written explanation by June 8, 2022, showing why any privilege or work-product protection connected to the annotated chats had not been waived. The court also ordered Citi to deliver a thumb drive containing the referenced annotated chats by noon on June 9, 2022, for the court’s private review. Ramchandani could respond by June 10, 2022. The parties were directed to appear by telephone on June 13, 2022, to address the pending letter motion.
The order did not state a final ruling on whether the memoranda or annotated chats were privileged, whether protection had been waived, or whether Citi had to produce the requested materials. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.