SGM Holdings LLC v. Andrews
- Sarah Cave
- 1:15-cv-08142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In SGM Holdings v. Andrews, Judge Cave granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ request to compel production of privileged documents.
The plaintiffs received an order requiring production of some challenged documents, while the defendants were permitted to withhold documents protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection and were required to produce other documents in full or with specified redactions.
What happened
In SGM Holdings LLC v. Andrews, the plaintiffs sued the defendants under New York Judiciary Law § 487, alleging that the defendants made deceitful statements to a court in an earlier related action. The plaintiffs asked the court to require production of documents the defendants had withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that these protections automatically ended when one defendant stopped appearing as counsel in the earlier action. It also found that litigation was pending or reasonably anticipated during the relevant period. After privately reviewing the challenged documents, however, the court found that some portions were not protected.
Judge Cave granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ request. The defendants could withhold 41 documents entirely, had to produce two documents in full, and had to produce portions of 14 documents with specified redactions by August 22, 2022.
The detailed version
- SGM Holdings LLC v. Andrews · No. 1:15-cv-08142
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
SGM Holdings LLC, Syndicated Geo Management Corporation, Richard Featherly, Lawrence Field, and Premier Natural Resources LLC brought this action against A. James Andrews, Karl Schledwitz, and Richard Gaines under New York Judiciary Law § 487. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made knowingly false and fabricated factual allegations to the court in an earlier related action. The defendants had been counsel to the plaintiffs in that earlier action.
The plaintiffs sought an order compelling production of documents that the defendants had withheld as privileged. The challenged materials included documents from February 20, 2015, through October 15, 2015, and 52 emails dated after October 15, 2015. The plaintiffs argued that privilege protections did not apply after Schledwitz stopped participating as counsel and that communications concerning filings in the earlier action should be produced. The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ request concerning communications about two additional letters.
Legal standards
Because the case was based on state law, the court applied New York law to attorney-client privilege. That privilege generally protects confidential communications between an attorney and client made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court explained that the privilege is narrowly applied because it can prevent relevant information from being discovered.
Federal law governed the work-product doctrine. That doctrine provides qualified protection for documents or tangible things prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation or for trial. The party asserting the protection must show that the material was prepared for that litigation purpose and by or for a party or representative.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ unsupported argument that all communications between February 20, 2015, and October 15, 2015, had to be produced. It found no authority establishing that attorney-client privilege or work-product protection automatically ends when an attorney withdraws from a case. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ claim that there was no pending or reasonably anticipated litigation during that period was incorrect. Among the challenged documents were communications concerning a crossclaim in the earlier action and a letter sent before that crossclaim under the federal rule allowing a party time to withdraw a filing before sanctions are sought.
After reviewing the challenged documents privately, the court determined that some communications were protected and that other portions were not. The court found that 41 documents were privileged in their entirety, two documents were not covered by any privilege, and portions of 14 documents were privileged while the remaining portions had to be produced.
Order
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ request. It ruled that the defendants properly withheld Privilege Log entry numbers 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30–32, 36–40, 42–45, 48, 49, 54–61, and 63–76, and did not have to produce those documents.
The defendants were ordered to produce Privilege Log entry numbers 25 and 28 in full. They were also ordered to produce specified portions of entry numbers 21, 22, 29, 33–35, 41, 46–47, and 50–53, and entry number 62, with the redactions identified in the order. The defendants had to produce the non-privileged and partially privileged documents by August 22, 2022.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.