Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-09193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Monterey Bay Military Housing v. Ambac Assurance, Judge Cave denied a request to clarify which communications plaintiffs could withhold under work-product protection.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ obligation to produce litigation-related communications and the discovery challenge brought by Ambac Assurance Corporation and Dan Ray.
What happened
In Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, Ambac and Dan Ray asked the court to clarify an earlier ruling about documents shared with third parties in this case and in the DSRF case. They focused on documents that plaintiffs had not previously identified as protected in their privilege logs.
The court explained that its earlier ruling waived protection for documents not previously marked as work product, except for third-party communications relating to this case or the DSRF case. The defendants had not challenged protection for those communications.
The court therefore confirmed that plaintiffs did not have to produce communications relating to either case and denied the letter-motion. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
The detailed version
- Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-09193
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
The court considered a letter-motion by Ambac Assurance Corporation and Dan Ray. They asked the court to clarify its January 19, 2023 Opinion and Order concerning whether the plaintiffs could withhold documents shared with third parties in this litigation and in the DSRF litigation based on newly asserted work-product protection. Work-product protection generally protects certain materials prepared for litigation from disclosure.
Court’s Analysis
The court said the January 19 order had already answered the question. That order held that, except for third-party communications relating to this action or the DSRF action, the plaintiffs had waived work-product protection for documents they had not previously identified as work product on their privilege logs. The court noted that the moving defendants had not challenged the plaintiffs’ assertion of work-product protection for communications about either litigation.
Ruling
The court affirmed its January 19 ruling and stated that the plaintiffs were not required to produce communications relating to this action or the DSRF action. Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the letter-motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.