SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SS&C Technologies v. Arcesium, Magistrate Judge Wang found a document privileged, ordered its return, and required an unredacted transcript filing.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., the other plaintiffs, Arcesium LLC, and the parties’ attorneys and witnesses involved in the document dispute, deposition, and transcript filing.
What happened
In SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC, the court reviewed a disputed document containing notes from a meeting with outside counsel about regulatory issues. The dispute arose in the parties’ litigation and involved the parties’ protective order.
After privately reviewing the document, the court found that the attorney-client privilege protected it in full. The opinion says the plaintiffs’ counsel had not identified the document as privileged before and had missed it in an initial notice of inadvertent disclosure. Arcesium did not make any argument that the privilege had been waived.
The court ordered Arcesium to return the document and follow the protective order. It declined to advise the parties about using words from the document during an upcoming deposition and reminded Arcesium that it could not rely on privileged documents. Magistrate Judge Wang also directed the parties to file a fully unredacted transcript of a July 18, 2023 status conference under seal.
The detailed version
- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02009
- Ona Wang
- Aug. 2, 2023
Background
The court reviewed several filings concerning document SSC_ARCESIUM00681413. The document contained notes from a meeting with outside counsel, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, concerning regulatory issues. The court stated that the document’s metadata clearly suggested that subject matter.
The plaintiffs had apparently used the parties’ protective order to claw back at least one group of documents that did not identify this document. The court criticized plaintiffs’ counsel for not recognizing the document’s privileged nature and for missing it in the initial notice of inadvertent disclosure. The defendant did not raise any argument that the disclosure had waived the privilege.
Rulings
After an in-camera review, meaning a private review by the court, the court found that the attorney-client privilege protected the document in its entirety. The privilege generally protects confidential communications made for obtaining or providing legal advice. The court directed Arcesium to return the document and comply with Section 10.2 of the Protective Order.
The court declined to issue an advisory opinion or suggest deposition questions or answers concerning whether certain words from the document could be used to refresh the recollection of a plaintiffs’ witness at the scheduled August 10, 2023 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The court reminded Arcesium that it could not rely on privileged documents.
The court also noted that pages 32–33 and 41–42 of the partially sealed transcript of the July 18, 2023 status conference contained redactions. It directed the parties to file a fully unredacted transcript of that conference under seal. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.