SGM Holdings LLC v. Andrews
- Sarah Cave
- 1:15-cv-08142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In SGM Holdings v. Andrews, Judge Cave denied part of Plaintiffs’ discovery request and ordered Defendants to submit challenged documents for review.
The order affected the plaintiffs—SGM Holdings LLC, Richard Featherly, Lawrence Field, Premier Natural Resources LLC, and Syndicated Geo Management Corporation—and the defendants—A James Andrews, Richard Gaines, and Karl Schledwitz. It denied one discovery request by Plaintiffs and required Defendants to submit specified documents for the court’s private review.
What happened
In SGM Holdings LLC v. Andrews, the plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendants to review additional emails and documents they had withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege. The request concerned communications about letters dated July 14 and October 20, 2015, along with other challenged documents.
The court had previously directed the defendants to review materials and provide a privilege log, which identified 76 emails. The plaintiffs did not object to that earlier direction within the required time, but later asked the court to expand the review to cover the two additional letters and sought production of other documents.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the request concerning the July 14 and October 20 letters because the plaintiffs had not raised it earlier. She ordered the defendants to email the challenged documents, identified as privilege-log entries 20 through 76, to chambers by July 6, 2022, for private court review.
The detailed version
- SGM Holdings LLC v. Andrews · No. 1:15-cv-08142
- Sarah Cave
- July 5, 2022
Background
The court held a discovery conference on June 3, 2022, concerning Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling Defendants to provide a detailed log of emails and documents withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege. The court directed Defendants to review the materials and report how many involved: (1) communications sent to or received by Karl Schledwitz; (2) communications containing or referencing Schledwitz’s comments about documents filed in a related matter; and (3) communications concerning the March 18, 2015 letter.
Plaintiffs did not object to the June 3 order during the conference or within the fourteen-day period for written objections. Defendants later reported that their review identified 76 emails and provided a privilege log. The court then directed Plaintiffs to identify documents for which they challenged the asserted basis for withholding them, directed Defendants to respond, and directed Defendants to provide challenged documents for the court’s private review.
Requests and Ruling
Plaintiffs sought production of documents dated February 20, 2015 through October 15, 2015, and 52 privilege-log emails dated after October 15, 2015. Plaintiffs also asked the court to require Defendants to review the materials for communications concerning letters dated July 14, 2015, and October 20, 2015. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ letter but did not email the challenged documents to chambers.
The court denied Plaintiffs’ request to require review of communications concerning the July 14 and October 20 letters. It reasoned that Plaintiffs had not raised those letters during the conference or within two weeks after the June 3 order, and had not shown a basis for excusing that delay. The court also ordered Defendants to email the challenged documents—privilege-log entries 20 through 76—to chambers by July 6, 2022, for the court’s private review.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.