Adams-Flores v. City of New York

Opinion

[ uspc spy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Nichole Adams-Flores, DATE FILED:_2/22/2022_ Plaintiff, 18-CV-12150 (JMF) (KHP) -against- OPINION City of New York et al, Defendants. KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge: A case management conference was held on February 11, 2022 where the Court made a number of rulings with respect to the parties’ discovery disputes enumerated at ECF No. 140. The parties are directed to the transcript. The last outstanding discovery dispute concerned Plaintiff's belief that Defendants improperly withheld documents as privilege and requested in camera review. The Court directed Plaintiff to identify ten documents from the log for in camera review. Defendants submitted those documents with a privilege log on February 16, 2022. The Court has now reviewed those documents. In reviewing the documents, the Court is guided by applicable law governing the privileges asserted — the attorney client privilege and work product privilege — the standards which are not repeated but set forth in the following cases: In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007) (discussing attorney client privilege); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (discussing work product doctrine); Brown v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 3d 637 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (discussing standard for attorney client privilege and work product privilege).

Although many of the documents selected were properly withheld as privileged, a few were not. The court’s rulings are set forth in the attached chart. Defendants shall review their privilege assertions on the remaining documents on their log to identify any other documents that need to be produced based on the court’s rulings reflected herein and as discussed during the conference, and produce any such documents by March 14, 2022. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York February 22, 2022 oe “HY, . 4 [outer Ka VAAL F Sf se KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:18-cv-12150-JMF-KHP Document 154 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 4 Privilege Log

Privilege Log ID General Subject Matter Type Court's Determination Withheld? This communication does not discuss, reflect, or request any legal advice or reflect work prepared at the direction of counsel. This email appears purely Re: Dr. Nichole Adams-Flores appointment procedural in that it discusses the from Civil Service List (Health Services physical sending of documentation and # 1 Priv-WIF-00001 Manager) ACC Adams-Flores signing off on it. Improperly Withheld This document is requesting legal review of a draft letter that is also # 2 Priv-WIF-00008 PSB 6.2.5 ACC privileged. Properly Withheld This document is a draft letter provided # 3 Priv-WIF-00009 Nichole Flores.pdf ACC to counsel for legal review. Properly Withheld The main correspondence by email is by two people, who are not attorneys. Neither are requesting legal advice and are in fact being told that "Legal is handling this." There is nothing to suggest that anyone is requesting legal # 4 Priv-WIF-00016 Re: Civil Service Title ACC advice or repeating legal advice . Improperly Withheld The Court Agrees with the redactions as it concerns communications Re: Clarification please-Attorney Client reflecting legal advice between # 5 Priv-Redact-00004 Confidential and Privlege Communications ACC attorneys. Properly Redacted While the redaction concerns a communication between two lawyers, there is no discussion about legal advice or strategy, and instead the Re: Clarification please-Attorney Client communications seeks a clarification on # 6 Priv-Redact-00006 Confidential and Privlege Communications ACC a factual matter. Improperly Redacted Requesting legal advice and is properly # 7 Priv-Redact-00009 PSB 6.2.5 ACC redacted. Properly Redacted Case 1:18-cv-12150-JMF-KHP Document 154 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 4 Privilege Log This communication requests legal Request to review case and reinstate as a advice and attorneys are included on # 8 Priv-Redact-00016 Health Service Manager ACC the communications. Properly Redacted This is a communication regarding legal # 9 Priv-Redact-00017 Re: PRR 6.1.3 ACC, AWP advice in Plaintiff's case. Properly Redacted FW: Request to Review case and reinstate as a This is properly redacted as discussed # 10 Priv-Redact-00029 Health Service Manager ACC at document 00016. Properly Redacted This document is properly redacted because it contains communications by Re: Certification ofrom Civil Service List an attorney that are discussing another # 11 Priv-Redact-0031 (Health Services Manager - list #187) ACC staff member. Properly Redacted