Disberry v. Employee Relations Committee of the Colgate-Palmolive Company
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-05778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Disberry v. Employee Relations Committee, Judge Wang held a fraud-incident summary was protected work product and properly withheld from discovery.
Paula Disberry and the Employee Relations Committee of the Colgate-Palmolive Company, concerning disclosure of a document prepared by Colgate-Palmolive’s internal counsel.
What happened
Disberry v. Employee Relations Committee of the Colgate-Palmolive Company involved a dispute over whether Colgate-Palmolive had to produce a document during discovery. The document summarized a potential fraud incident and was prepared by the company’s internal counsel.
After privately reviewing the document, the court ruled that it was prepared because litigation was possible and was therefore protected attorney work product. The court also found that Paula Disberry had not shown a strong enough need for the document and could seek other nonprotected information about Colgate-Palmolive’s investigation.
Judge Ona T. Wang concluded that the document was properly withheld from discovery.
The detailed version
- Disberry v. Employee Relations Committee of the Colgate-Palmolive Company · No. 1:22-cv-05778
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 14, 2023
Background
The court addressed a discovery dispute concerning a document prepared by Colgate-Palmolive’s internal counsel. The document summarized a potential fraud incident. The parties submitted letters stating their positions on whether the attorney work product doctrine protected the document from disclosure.
Under the court’s September 9, 2023 order, Judge Wang conducted an in camera review, meaning a private review by the judge, of the document and the parties’ submissions.
Ruling
The court concluded that the document was created after Paula Disberry requested information about how to submit a claim and that the amount involved was approximately $750,000. Based on those circumstances, the court found that the document was prepared in anticipation of potential litigation and was protected attorney work product under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3).
The court also concluded that Disberry could not show a substantial need for the document, which is required to obtain protected work product in some circumstances. The court stated that Disberry could seek other, nonprivileged information about the steps Colgate-Palmolive took after its investigation. The court therefore determined that the document was properly withheld in discovery.
Effect
The order resolves the specific discovery dispute concerning this document. It does not state that the underlying claims were decided. Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on September 14, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.