Delux Public Charter, LLC v. County of Westchester, New York
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-01930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Delux Public Charter v. County of Westchester, Judge Halpern granted a discovery-conference request and scheduled the disputes for a case-management conference.
The ruling affected Delux Public Charter, LLC and the other plaintiffs, the County of Westchester and the other defendants, and the parties’ pending discovery disputes.
What happened
In Delux Public Charter, LLC v. County of Westchester, New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to address discovery disputes involving documents about airport terminal-use rules and the airport’s proposed privatization. The filing concerned documents the County withheld as protected by attorney-client confidentiality and documents related to a 2016 airport privatization request for proposals.
The plaintiffs argued that communications involving an Airport Advisory Board member were not protected and that privatization documents were relevant. The County argued that its document list was complete, that the communications were protected, and that the requested privatization documents were irrelevant and sought too late.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application for a discovery conference and stated that the disputes would be addressed at the case-management conference scheduled for March 27, 2023. The order did not decide whether the County had to produce the disputed documents.
The detailed version
- Delux Public Charter, LLC v. County of Westchester, New York · No. 7:22-cv-01930
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 7, 2023
What the filing concerned
The document is a joint letter about discovery disputes, followed by Judge Halpern’s order. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the County to produce two categories of documents:
1. Memoranda and communications concerning the Terminal Use Program and whether it applied to charter operators. 2. Proposals and County responses concerning a 2016 request for proposals to privatize the airport.
The plaintiffs’ position
The plaintiffs argued that communications involving Mr. Schlactus, an Airport Advisory Board member, were not protected by attorney-client privilege, which generally protects confidential communications for obtaining or providing legal advice. They argued that he acted in an individual capacity, that the Board lacked decision-making authority, that the communications were not confidential, and that any privilege had been waived.
The plaintiffs also argued that the airport-privatization documents were relevant because they could show what the County knew about charter operations and whether the Terminal Use Program applied to those operations.
The County’s position
The County responded that its privilege log was complete and included the communications identified by the plaintiffs. It argued that privilege applied to communications with Mr. Schlactus when he acted as chair of the County Airport Advisory Board. The County also argued that documents concerning the proposed privatization were irrelevant, overly broad, and sought too late because the plaintiffs challenged the discovery objections after fact discovery had closed.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application for a discovery conference. The order stated that the disputes identified in the joint letter would be addressed at the case-management conference scheduled for March 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 520.
The order did not rule on the plaintiffs’ requests for production, the County’s privilege arguments, or the relevance and timeliness objections. The excerpt therefore shows a scheduling and case-management ruling, not a decision requiring or refusing production of the disputed documents.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.