Olohan v. Google LLC
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-10163
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Olohan v. Google, Judge Subramanian ordered production of most disputed redactions, while protecting one document and portions of two others.
Ryan Olohan and Tiffany Miller, particularly Miller’s claims of attorney-client and work-product protection over five documents.
What happened
In Olohan v. Google LLC, Ryan Olohan asked the court to compel Tiffany Miller to produce unredacted versions of five documents. Miller argued that the redacted material was protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege.
After reviewing the documents privately, the court ordered TM 0021 and TM U-00067 produced in full. It ruled that privilege was waived for TM 0021 when Miller forwarded it to a friend and for TM U-00067 when the documents were shared with media consultants. The court allowed TM 00278 to remain redacted because it contained Miller’s thoughts prepared in anticipation of litigation. It ordered TM 00164 and TM 00262 produced with some redactions removed, while protecting specified factual material and mental impressions related to the lawsuit.
Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on March 4, 2024, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Olohan v. Google LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10163
- Subramanian
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
Ryan Olohan moved to compel production of unredacted versions of five documents produced by Tiffany Miller. Miller asserted that the redacted portions were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. The court reviewed the documents in camera, meaning privately and outside the presence of the parties.
Document-by-Document Rulings
- TM 0021: The court ordered this document produced in unredacted form. Miller claimed that the redacted material contained legal advice from her attorney to her husband. The court stated that, even assuming the material was privileged, Miller waived the privilege by forwarding the email to a friend.
- TM U-00067: The court ordered this document produced in unredacted form. Miller claimed that the redactions contained legal advice and her response describing actions taken based on that advice. The court ruled that sharing the documents with Miller’s media consultants waived attorney-client privilege. It also ruled that the emails concerned press coverage and handling press calls, so they were outside the protection of the work-product doctrine.
- TM 00278: The court ruled that this document did not need to be produced in unredacted form. It reflected Miller’s impressions and thoughts and appeared to have been prepared in anticipation of litigation, bringing it within work-product protection. The court also ruled that this protection was not waived merely because the work product was provided to a public-relations consultant who maintained it confidentially, or because the email was shared with Miller’s spouse.
- TM 00164 and TM 00262: The court ordered these documents produced in partially unredacted form. The documents included emails among Miller, her attorney, and her media consultants. The court found that much of the material concerned Miller’s media strategy rather than legal advice or litigation preparation and therefore fell outside both privileges. The court protected Miller’s emails sent on January 29, 2023, at 11:54 a.m. and 12:34 p.m. in TM 00164, along with the first and third items in the list in TM 00262, because those portions contained factual material or Miller’s mental impressions shared because of the pending lawsuit.
Disposition
The order directed production as specified above and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 73. The opinion did not expressly state that the motion to compel was “granted in part” or “denied in part”; it stated the required treatment of each document instead.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.