Coker v. Goldberg & Associates P.C.
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-01803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Coker v. Goldberg & Associates, Judge Rochon stayed a discovery-sanctions order while reviewing defendants’ objections.
The stay temporarily protects Defendants Goldberg & Associates P.C. and Goldberg from having to comply with the challenged discovery order while the objections are reviewed, and it concerns information defendants say is privileged for non-party clients. The plaintiff may respond to the objections.
What happened
In Coker v. Goldberg & Associates P.C., defendants challenged Magistrate Judge Moses’s discovery order, which required Goldberg to turn over information that defendants said belonged to non-party clients and was protected by attorney-client privilege. Defendants argued that Goldberg could not waive those clients’ privilege and that producing the information could cause permanent harm.
Defendants asked the district court to pause the order while it considered their objections. They said they were willing to provide a privilege log instead, but that the plaintiff’s lawyer had rejected that proposal.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered the requested stay to preserve the current situation while reviewing the objections. Judge Rochon expressly did not decide whether the objections were correct; the plaintiff could respond by February 27, 2024.
The detailed version
- Coker v. Goldberg & Associates P.C. · No. 1:21-cv-01803
- Rochon
- Feb. 14, 2024
Background
Magistrate Judge Moses issued a discovery order, identified as ECF No. 120, concerning discovery sanctions. According to defendants’ filing, the order required Defendant Goldberg, described as an attorney, to produce her clients’ allegedly privileged information to the plaintiff’s attorney. The filing said Magistrate Judge Moses treated the failure to provide a privilege log as a waiver of the privilege.
Defendants objected that the privilege belonged to their non-party clients, not to Goldberg or the law firm, and therefore could not be waived by the defendants’ conduct. They also argued that the non-party clients had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard. Defendants stated that they were willing to provide a privilege log, but that plaintiff’s counsel had declined that offer and instead demanded the underlying recordings.
Request for a Stay
Defendants asked the district court to stay, or temporarily pause, the discovery order while the court considered their objections. They argued that producing third parties’ privileged information would cause harm that could not be undone. The filing relied on attorney-client privilege principles and argued that a privilege log would be a more appropriate response, if a sanction was needed.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered a stay of Magistrate Judge Moses’s order pending the court’s decision on defendants’ objections. The court stated that the stay was entered solely to preserve the status quo and that it expressed no view on the objections’ merits. Plaintiff was permitted to file a response to the objections by February 27, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.