Dr. Stella Safo v. Dr. Prabhjot Singh

Background

The parties participated in a discovery conference on January 3, 2024. Plaintiffs sought the complete file from a 2018 internal investigation and a document-by-document privilege log for documents related to that investigation. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants’ privilege claims were improper and overbroad, that Defendants had waived privilege, and that a categorical privilege log was inadequate.

Defendants argued that the investigation was conducted to provide legal advice and in anticipation of litigation. They asserted that the requested materials were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, which protects materials prepared because of anticipated litigation. Defendants also argued that revealing the outcome of an investigation did not waive privilege, that Plaintiffs had not shown the substantial need required to overcome the protection, and that categorical privilege logs are presumptively proper in the Southern District of New York.

Ruling

The court found that the 2018 internal-investigation materials were privileged and that a categorical privilege log was proper. The court reasoned that materials prepared in anticipation of litigation can be protected work product even when they also serve business purposes. The court further found that any dual purpose of the investigation did not eliminate its primary purpose of anticipating litigation. Plaintiffs had conceded that other means existed to obtain the information and had not shown a substantial need for the privileged materials.

The parties were directed to order a transcript of the conference and provide it to the court by email. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to close the motion at Dkt. No. 133. The opinion does not separately state that the motion was granted or denied.