The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America, Judge Furman granted respondents’ request for nonwaiver protection for documents produced under the court’s order.
The respondents producing documents under the Court’s July 13 order, the defendants who would receive them, and parties involved in related proceedings could be affected by the Rule 502(d) nonwaiver protection.
What happened
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, respondents sought protection for documents they planned to produce under the court’s July 13, 2022 order. They said producing the documents should not waive any attorney-client privilege or other protection.
The requested protection would apply in this case and other federal or state proceedings. The defendants did not oppose the request, while reserving their right to argue that particular documents were not privileged or protected.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 75. The opinion does not separately state a ruling on the request to postpone the production deadline.
The detailed version
- The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01608
- Jesse Furman
- July 22, 2022
Background
The application concerned the Court’s July 13, 2022 order, which directed respondents either to produce specified documents or to make a further submission explaining why the documents should not be produced. Respondents stated that they intended to produce most of the documents and had made a further submission concerning a small number they sought to withhold.
Requested protection
Respondents asked the Court to issue an order under Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. They requested that producing documents under the July 13 order, or under any similar later order, would not waive any applicable privilege or other protection concerning the documents or their subject matter. The requested protection was to apply in this action and in other proceedings, including federal and state proceedings identified in the application.
Respondents said the requested protection was substantially consistent with a protective order already entered in the case, but would extend comparable protection to a nonparty producing documents. The application also stated that Edelweiss was involved in ongoing litigation against many defendants in related state proceedings. The defendants did not oppose the requested nonwaiver protection, while reserving their right to argue that any particular document was outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege or another protection.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 75. The text provided does not separately state a ruling on respondents’ request to postpone the production deadline if the Court had not ruled by July 22.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.