Bulgari v. Bulgari

Background

On May 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted in part Veronica Bulgari’s motion to compel Ilaria Bulgari to produce materials relevant to assessing Ilaria’s alleged damages. The materials included invoices and timesheets for legal and investigative work, an investigative report prepared by Kroll Inc., and communications between counsel and Kroll.

The magistrate judge required Ilaria to produce invoices and timesheets showing the time spent, the person who performed the work, and the tasks performed. The order allowed limited redactions for material that truly reflected attorneys’ thoughts or protected attorney-client communications. It did not require Ilaria to produce the Kroll report or counsel’s communications with Kroll.

Objection and governing standard

Veronica timely objected to the part of the order denying her request for the Kroll report and related communications. She argued that Ilaria had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection by placing Kroll’s work at issue through her damages claim. She also argued that her substantial need for the materials overcame work-product protection. Veronica separately moved to redact portions of her objection.

Because the motion to compel involved a nondispositive discovery matter, the district court could change the magistrate judge’s ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, cases, or procedural rules. The court also stated that magistrate judges’ decisions on nondispositive matters receive substantial deference.

Ruling

The court found that the magistrate judge correctly determined that Ilaria had not waived work-product protection merely by claiming as damages the money spent on the investigation of Veronica’s alleged misconduct. The court also found that Veronica had not shown a substantial need for the Kroll report and related emails because Ilaria was required to produce substantially unredacted invoices and timesheets. Veronica’s argument that the work descriptions were unclear did not change that conclusion.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield held that the magistrate judge’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court therefore overruled Veronica’s objection and granted her motion to redact portions of the objection. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 241.