Thieriot v. Laggner
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-01875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thieriot v. Laggner, Judge Clarke denied Laggner’s request to compel an unredacted email, finding the redacted portion protected by attorney-client privilege.
Juan Pablo Thieriot and William Laggner; the ruling determined that Thieriot was not required to produce the redacted portion of the email in unredacted form.
What happened
Thieriot v. Laggner involved Defendant William Laggner’s request to require Plaintiff Juan Pablo Thieriot to produce an unredacted email obtained from non-party Uphold HQ Inc. The email was partly redacted.
Laggner argued that the redacted material was not a request for legal advice and concerned a business transaction involving Uphold shares and a settlement agreement. Thieriot argued that the material was protected by Uphold’s attorney-client privilege because Uphold’s general counsel sent it to Thieriot while he was a board member.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke reviewed the unredacted email, found that the redacted portion was properly withheld under attorney-client privilege, denied Laggner’s motion, and directed the clerk to terminate the joint letter motion.
The detailed version
- Thieriot v. Laggner · No. 1:23-cv-01875
- Clarke
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter motion about a discovery dispute. Laggner asked the court to compel Thieriot to produce an unredacted version of a July 12, 2022 email from Mark Anderson, Uphold’s general counsel, to Thieriot. The email was included in Uphold’s third document production and contained a redacted portion.
The parties’ counsel met and conferred but could not resolve the dispute. The court reviewed the unredacted email submitted by Thieriot’s counsel.
Laggner’s Position
Laggner argued that the redacted material was not protected by the attorney-client privilege, which generally protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. He contended that the email discussed a potential transfer of Laggner’s Uphold shares and Thieriot’s personal interest in that transaction under a settlement agreement, rather than legal advice. Laggner also argued that Anderson’s role as Uphold’s general counsel did not automatically make the communication privileged because a general counsel may handle business as well as legal matters.
Thieriot’s Position
Thieriot argued that the redacted material was privileged. He stated that Anderson was Uphold’s general counsel and that Thieriot was a member of Uphold’s board of directors. According to Thieriot, Anderson advised him to limit discussions with Laggner to personal disputes between Thieriot and Laggner and to avoid discussing disputes between Uphold and Laggner in Thieriot’s role as a director. Thieriot also argued that the redacted material had no bearing on the dispute in the action.
Ruling
The court found that the redacted portion was properly withheld based on attorney-client privilege for the reasons stated in Thieriot’s portion of the joint letter. The court denied Laggner’s motion and directed the clerk to terminate the joint letter motion at ECF No. 51.
Disposition
The discovery motion was denied. The ruling addressed whether the email had to be produced in unredacted form; it did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.