CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v CWCapital Invs. LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33321(U) September 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653277/2018 Judge: Andrea Masley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD., INDEX NO. 653277/2018
Plaintiff, MOTION DATE - V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 020 CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC and CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, DECISION+ ORDER ON Defendants. MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 020) 528,529,530, 531, 532,533,534,535,536,539,540,541,542,543,544,545 were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS
In motions sequence 020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. (Cobalt) moves pursuant to
CPLR 3104 (d) to reverse Referee Gold's 1 February 16, 2024 Order. The Referee
performed an in camera review of 32 email chains 2 submitted by CWCapital
Investments LLC and CWCapital Asset Management LLC (together, CW) and
concluded that "CW's invocations of attorney-client privilege with respect to all
documents submitted for in camera review are sustained, with the following exceptions:
those documents CW has already produced, Document 17, and the redacted portion of
Document 9." (NYSCEF 532, Referee's Feb. 16, 2024 Order at 5.) The Referee stated
that
1 Honorable Steven M. Gold (ret.) was appointed as Discovery Referee by September 10, 2021 Stipulation Regarding Appointment of Discovery Master. (NYSCEF 292, Stipulation.) 2 Although CW initially asserted privilege as to 35 email chains, they have withdrawn the
assertation of privilege for documents no. 4, 20, and 24. ( See NYSCEF 532, Referee's Feb. 16, 2024 Order at n 2.) 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 1 of 14 Motion No. 020
1 of 14 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
"The emails at issue were all written over a period of less than four weeks during which intense efforts to settle a then-pending complex commercial litigation were underway. The subject matter of the withheld emails concerns those settlement efforts, and outside litigation counsel or in-house counsel were copied on each of the withheld emails. Several of the emails contain what at first glance might appear to be financial deal terms and to be predominantly discussions of business rather than legal matters. However, the circumstances under which they were written, the fact that outside litigation counsel is the author of some of the emails and is copied on the vast majority of them, and the context I glean from my review of the entire set of emails, leads me to conclude that the emails are primarily legal in nature. To the extent various deal terms are being discussed and evaluated in the emails, it is undoubtedly in the context of the status of the pending litigation and the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses asserted in that litigation. It is also clear that, in some emails, outside counsel was providing legal advice about the permissibility, as a matter of law, of some contemplated deal terms. See, e.g., Email sent at 6:05 a.m. on September 2, 2015. It accordingly follows that emails discussing possible deal terms were forwarded to outside counsel at least in part to make certain that counsel agreed that the proposed terms were legally permissible.
The New York Court of Appeals has observed that '[p]roximity to litigation ... may itself reveal that the motive in a lawyer's communication was to give legal advice.' Spectrum Syst. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 380 (1991). Moreover, it has long been clear that '[c]ommunications between counsel and a client as to settlement negotiations are ... protected from disclosure as an attorney-client communication.' Omni Health and Fitness Complex of Pelham, Inc. v. PIA-Acadia Pelham Manor, LLC, 33 Misc. 3d 1211 [A], 2011 WL 4985197, at *4 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co., Sept. 28, 2022) citing In re Bekins Rec. Storage Co., Inc., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 327 (1984). Thus, under the circumstances presented here, CW's claims of privilege are supported by established case law.'' (Id. at 4-5.)
Cobalt argues that the Referee's order is contrary to the law in that "even though
the documents, on their face, did not request legal advice or convey legal advice - and
no attorney appears on at least some of them - the Referee inferred that they were for
the purpose of seeking or conveying legal advice because of the 'context' in which they
were made." (NYSCEF 529, Cobalt MOL at 14.) Cobalt seeks a reversal of the
653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 2 of 14 Motion No. 020
2 of 14 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
Referee Order to the extent that it concludes that the 30 3 documents/email chains were
privileged.
The standard of review of a discovery referee's decision is whether the decision
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. ( CIT Project Fin. v Credit Sussie First Boston
LLC., 7 Misc 3d 1002[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50406[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2005].)
"The attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure any confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client made for the purpose of obtaining or facilitating legal advice in the course of a professional relationship. The oldest among the common-law evidentiary privileges, the attorney-client privilege fosters the open dialogue between lawyer and client that is deemed essential to effective representation. It exists to ensure that one seeking legal advice will be able to confide fully and freely in his attorney, secure in the knowledge that his confidences will not later be exposed to public view to his embarrassment or legal detriment." (Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 623 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations].)
"In order to make a valid claim of privilege, it must be shown that the information
sought to be protected from disclosure was a 'confidential communication' made to the
attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services." (Priest v Hennessy, 51
NY2d 62, 69 [1980] [citation omitted].) "The communication itself must be primarily or
predominantly of a legal character." (Spectrum Sys. Inti. Corp. v Chem. Bank, 78 NY2d
371, 378 [1991] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) "Conversely, one who
seeks out an attorney for business or personal advice may not assert a privilege as to
those communications." (In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served upon Bekins Record Star.
Co., 62 NY2d 324,329 [1984] [citations omitted].) Further, a communication "does not
become privileged merely because it was sent to an attorney." (Spectrum Sys. Inti.
Corp., 78 NY2d at 379; see also United States Postal Serv. v Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp.,
3 Cobalt does not challenge the Referee's determination that Document 17 and the redacted portion of Document 9 were not privileged. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 3 of 14 Motion No. 020
3 of 14 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
852 F Supp 156, 160 [ED NY 1994] ["the mere fact that a communication is made
directly to an attorney, or an attorney is copied on a memorandum, does not mean that
the communication is necessarily privileged" (citation omitted)].)
"Communications between counsel and a client as to settlement negotiations are
also protected from disclosure as an attorney-client communication." (Omni Health &
Fitness Complex of Pelham, Inc. v PIA-Acadia Pelham Manor, LLC, 33 Misc 3d
1211[A], 1211A, 2011 NY Slip Op 51895[U], *4 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2011]
[citation omitted].) However, such communications must still be "predominantly legal in
nature and rendered by counsel as part of their legal responsibilities." (Id. [citation
omitted].)
The court conducted an in camera review of the 30 documents submitted by CW.
These documents contain emails exchanged between David lannarone, CWCapital
Asset Management LLC's CEO, Andrew MacArthur, CWCapital Asset Management
LLC's asset manager for Stuy Town, Peter Briger, the co-chief executive officer of
CWCapital Asset Management LLC's parent, Fortress Investment Group (Fortress),
Randy Nardone, a co-founder and principal of Fortress and Drew McKnight, a managing
director at Fortress, among other individuals, and CW and Fortress' external and
internal legal counsel, Greg Cross, Esq. and Wallace Christner, Esq. from Venable and
David Mills, Esq. (Fortress in-house counsel) and Dan Ward, Esq. (CWCapital Asset
Management LLC's General Counsel). The discussions in these emails pertain to then
ongoing negotiations to settle the Mezzco Action. 4
4PCVST Mezzco 4, LLC v Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortg. Tr. 2007-C30, Index No. 652045/2014 (Sup Ct, NY County) 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 4 of 14 Motion No. 020
4 of 14 [* 4] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
After review, Referee Gold erred in presuming that the pre-dominant nature of
the communications contained in the 30 documents was legal because of their proximity
to litigation and ongoing settlement negotiations. The court reverses the Referee Order
to the extent set forth below.
Document 1 (CW0571234 5 )
The redacted email from lannarone (09/09/2015, 8:29 am) provides a brief
update regarding the then-ongoing settlement discussions and is addressed to among
others Greg Cross, outside counsel to CW and Fortress. The redacted email from Pete
Briger of Fortress (09/09/2015, 4:18:54 PM) provides a direction to Cross. Neither
email was written for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services and do not
contain any legal advice. Thus, the emails are not protected by the attorney-client
privilege.
Document 2 (CW0362146)
The redacted email from lannarone (09/08/2015, 2:00: 19 pm) was sent to Wes
Edens at Fortress with Cross and Nardone cc'ed. lannarone's email discusses the
proposed settlement waterfall structure. However, no legal advice is sought or given in
this email and the predominant purpose of this email is business rather than legal.
Document 2 is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Document 3 (CW0571277)
The email chain starts with an unredacted email from lannarone. The responsive
redacted email from McKnight (09/10/2015, 8:37 am) is not protected by the attorney-
client privilege. Likewise, the responsive email from MacArthur (09/10/2015, 12:41 :21
5 The court includes the bates number where provided. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 5 of 14 Motion No. 020
5 of 14 [* 5] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
pm) is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Attorneys Cross and Mills are
merely copied on these redacted emails. The communications do not solicit legal
advice or services. The emails also do not contain legal advice.
Document 5 (CW0571268)
The initial unredacted email by lannarone (09/13/2015, 4:47 pm) summarizes the
negotiation discussions between lannarone and Centerbridge's team. The redacted
responsive emails from Pete Briger (09/13/2015, 8:58 pm) and from McKnight
(09/14/2015, 4:43:25 am) are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Cross and
Mills are merely copied on these redacted emails. The redacted emails are discussions
between businesspeople regarding the terms of the settlement proposal.
Document 6 (CW0571156)
Same as above, the initial unredacted email is by lannarone (09/13/2015, 4:47
pm). The first redacted responsive email by Briger (09/13/2015, 8:58 pm 6 ) to lannarone
is not protected by attorney-client privilege as discussed supra (Document 5). The next
redacted email is lannarone's response to Briger (09/14/2015, 10:58:37 am) and is also
not protected by attorney-client privilege as it constitutes communication among
businesspeople. Neither email was written for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or
services. Again, Cross and Mills, are merely copied on these redacted emails.
Document 7 (CW0571269)
The email from Cross (09/08/2015, 11 :24 am) to lannarone and MacArthur is
protected by the attorney-client privilege.
6 In the email chain marked at document 6, Briger's email is time-stamped 11 :58 pm. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 6 of 14 Motion No. 020
6 of 14 [* 6] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
Document 8 (CW0571199)
The redacted email from lannarone (09/08/2015, 5:03:24 pm) forwards
Centerbridge's September 8, 2015 proposal and discusses matters relevant to the
settlement. The email seeks legal advice. Document 8 is protected by the attorney-
client privilege.
Document 10 (CW0571308)
The redacted email from by Briger (09/13/2015, 8:58 pm 7) to lannarone is not
protected by the attorney-client privilege as discussed supra (Document 5).
Document 11 (CW0571239)
The redacted email from by Briger (09/13/2015, 8:58 pm 8) to lannarone is not
protected by the attorney-client privilege as discussed supra (Document 5). lannarone's
response to Briger (09/14/2015, 10:58:37 am 9 ) is not protected by the attorney-client
privilege as discussed supra (Document 6).
Document 12 (CW0571157)
The redacted email from by Briger (09/13/2015, 8:58 pm 10 ) to lannarone is not
protected by the attorney-client privilege as discussed supra (Document 5). lannarone's
response to Briger (09/14/2015, 10:58:37 am 11 ) is not protected by the attorney-client
7 In the email chain marked at document 10, Briger's email is time-stamped 3:58:22 am. 8 In the email claim marked as document 11, Briger's email is time-stamped 11 :58 pm. 9 In the email chain marked as document 11, lannarone's email to Briger (09/14/2015) is
time-stamped 3:58 am. 10 In the email claim marked as document 12, Briger's email is time-stamped 11 :58 pm.
11 In the email chain marked as document 12, lannarone's email to Briger is time-
stamped 3:58 am. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 7 of 14 Motion No. 020
7 of 14 [* 7] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
The redacted email from McKnight (09/14/2014, 5:39 pm) to Cross, Briger and
lannarone is protected by the attorney-client privilege as the communication seeks legal
advice. Indeed, Cross responded that "I am available to discuss whenever the group is"
(09/14/2015, 3:25 pm). The redacted email from McKnight (09/15/2015) to Cross and
Mills with others on copy is also protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, the
redacted responsive email by Briger stating "Perfect" (09/15/2015, 1: 10:32 pm) is not
Document 13
This email chain is protected by the attorney-client privilege. These
communications are between attorney and client involving the solicitation and rendering
of legal advice.
Document 14 (CW0595160)
The portion of the email chain that is withheld for privilege is a memorandum by
Wallace Christner, an attorney, and contains legal advice. The memorandum is
The redacted email by MacArthur (09/17/2016, 5:45 pm) is directed to several
recipients, including Cross and lannarone, and forwards an email from a reporter. The
email does not seek legal advice from Cross, and thus, is not protected by the attorney-
client privilege. lannarone's redacted email that follows stating "Fyi" (09/17/2015, 8:19
pm) is similarly not protected. The next redacted email was sent by Brian Hanson
(09/17/2015, 9:31 pm) and is addressed to lannarone, with Ward and others copied, is
protected by the attorney-client privilege as it requests legal advice.
653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 8 of 14 Motion No. 020
8 of 14 [* 8] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
Document 15
This email chain consists of an email from Ward and responsive emails by
lannarone and MacArthur with direction to Ward. These communications are between
an attorney and client involving the rendering of legal advice and are protected by
attorney-client privilege.
Document 16 (CW0582220)
As discussed supra (document 3), the redacted email from McKnight
(09/10/2015, 8:37 am 12 ) is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Document 18
Document 18 is an email chain containing emails between and among CW
employees and CW's external counsel. These emails are protected by attorney-client
privilege as they involve discussions with counsel about a settlement of a litigation.
Document 19
Document 19 is a continuation of the email chain reflected in Document 18 with
the addition of email dated September 18, 2015 (9: 18:42 pm) from Andrew MacArthur.
These communications are privileged.
Document 21
Document 21 is an email chain comprised of seven emails between CW/Fortress
and external and internal legal counsel. The email dated September 17, 2015 from
David lannarone sent at 8:58 am shall be redacted in part in so far as the sentence
12In the email chain marked as document 16, McKnight's email is time-stamped 12:37:41 pm. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 9 of 14 Motion No. 020
9 of 14 [* 9] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
starting with "an" and the sentence starting with "we" shall be redacted. The other
emails are not privileged as they are not predominantly legal in nature.
Document 22
Document 22 is an email chain comprised of nine emails between CW/Fortress
and external and internal legal counsel. Four of the nine emails seek legal advice. 13
These emails are privileged. However, the remaining five emails either pertain to
scheduling a meeting between the people on the email chain or discuss the ongoing
negotiations where no legal advice is being sought or dispensed. 14 These emails are
not privileged.
Document 23
Document 23 is an email chain comprised of three emails between CW/Fortress
and legal counsel. These emails reflect discussions pertaining to the Mezzco
settlement between the CW/Fortress personnel. Though Cross is copied on these
emails, no legal advice is being sought or dispensed and the emails reflect purely
business discussions. These emails are not privileged.
Document 25
Document 25 is an email chain comprised of emails between CW/Fortress and
legal counsel. The emails pertain to the possible timing of the execution of a settlement
13 Email dated August 27, 2015 from Cross at 12:25 pm; email dated September 2,
2015 from McKnight at 9:12 am; email dated September 2, 2015 from Cross at 6:50 am; email dated September 2, 2015 from Briger at 6:55 am. 14 Email dated September 2, 2015 from Mills at 10:01 am; email dated September 2,
2015 from Cross at 7:13 am; email dated September 2, 2015 from Mills at 10:33 am; email dated September 4, 2015 from MacArthur at 12:46 pm and email dated September 7, 2015 from McKnight at 5:52:58 pm. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 10 of 14 Motion No. 020
10 of 14 [* 10] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
agreement. Though the legal counsel is copied on these emails, there is no solicitation
of legal advice in these emails. These emails are not privileged.
Document 26
Document 26 is an email chain comprised of 3 emails between CW/Fortress and
legal counsel. These emails reflect discussions pertaining to the Mezzco settlement
between the CW/Fortress personnel. Though Cross is copied on these emails, no legal
advice is being sought or dispensed and the emails reflect purely business discussions.
These emails are not privileged.
Document 27
Document 27 contains two emails between CW/Fortress and Cross. In email
dated August 28, 2015 (4:45 pm), Cross provides legal advice. This email is privileged.
In his email dated August 31, 2015 (10:02:51 am), lannarone forwards Cross's email
dated August 28, 2015 and the attachment to another CW personnel. This email is also
privileged as it forwards a privileged email.
Document 28
Document 28 is an email from lannarone to other Fortress personnel. The email
contains an attachment about financial projections. Though Cross is copied on this
email, the email is evidently a discussion about business considerations. No legal
advice has been sought or dispensed. This email is not privileged.
Document 29
Document 29 is an email chain comprised of emails between CW/Fortress and
legal counsel. Though the external legal counsel Cross is copied on these emails, no
653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 11 of 14 Motion No. 020
11 of 14 [* 11] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
legal advice is being sought or given and the emails reflect purely business discussions
and calculations. These emails are not privileged.
Document 30 (CW0595158)
Document 30 is a September 9, 2015 email from lannarone to MacArthur. Cross
is copied. CW seeks to redact a portion of this email. The redacted portion of the email
does not seek legal advice or relay legal advice.
Document 31
Document 31 is an email chain comprised of emails between CW/Fortress and
legal counsel. Nine 15 of these emails are between CW executives and no lawyer is
copied on these emails. These emails are not protected by attorney-client privilege. In
the remaining four emails in the chain 16 , Cross is either giving legal advice or his legal
advice is being sought or referred to by CW executives. These emails are privileged.
Document 32 (CW0595159)
As discussed supra (document 30), this communication is not privileged.
15 Email dated August 26, 2015 from Magidson at 2:31 pm; email dated August 26, 2015 from MacArthur at 3:24 pm; email dated August 26, 2015 from Magidson at 3:29 pm; email dated August 26, 2015 from MacArthur at 7:23 pm; email dated August 26, 2015 from Magidson at 7:24 pm; email dated August 26, 2015 from MacArthur at 8:23 pm; email dated August 26, 2015 from Magidson at 8:24:08 pm; email dated August 27, 2015 from lannarone at 10:10 am; email dated August 27, 2015 from Shimizu at 8:15 am. 16 Email dated August 26, 2015 from MacArthur at 9:25 pm; email dated August 27,
2015 from Cross at 6:39:18 am; email dated August 27, 2015 from lannarone at 10:19 am; email dated August 27, 2015 from Shimizu at 10:23:33 am. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 12 of 14 Motion No. 020
12 of 14 [* 12] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04:21 P~ INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
Document 33
Document 33 is an email chain between lannarone and MacArthur. Though
Cross is copied on these emails, no legal advice is being sought or given and the emails
reflect purely business discussions. These emails are not privileged.
Document 34
Document 34 is an email chain comprised of 22 emails between CW/Fortress
executives. Cross is copied on these emails. In 18 17 of these emails, counsel Cross's
advice is being sought or he is giving legal advice pertaining to the ongoing negotiations
for the Mezzco settlement. While most of this advice is legal in nature, some of it
pertains to business or strategic considerations. Legal privilege is not vitiated by the
fact that an attorney's advice includes both legal and strategic considerations as long as
the predominant nature of the communication is legal. (United States v Davis, 131 FRO
391, 401 [SONY 1990] [citations omitted] [holding that "[t]he mere fact that business
advice is given or solicited does not, however, automatically render the privilege lost:
17 Email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 1:32 pm; email dated September
16, 2015 from Cross at 10:40 am; email dated September 16, 2015 from McKnight at 1:47 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 1:51 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 1:55 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 1:57 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 1:59 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 2:01 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 3:01 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 3:08 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 3:08 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 3:09 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 3:09 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 3:10 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 3:17 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 12:33 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from McKnight at 3:43 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 12:45 pm.
653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 13 of 14 Motion No. 020
13 of 14 [* 13] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2024 04: 21 PM! INDEX NO. 653277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1317 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2024
where the advice given is predominantly legal, as opposed to business, in nature the
privilege will still attach"].) These emails are privileged.
However, the remaining four emails 18 where no legal advice is being given or
sought are not privileged despite counsel being copied on these emails.
Document 35
Document 35 is an email chain comprised of four emails between CW/Fortress
and Cross. These discussions constitute business strategy which is not privileged.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Referee Gold's February 16, 2024 Order is vacated, in part, and
CWCapital Investments LLC and CWCapital Asset Management LLC shall produce the
documents identified as non-privileged in this decision in an unredacted form to
CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd within five days of this decision.
~m,.Me
9/19/2024 DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
18 Email dated September 16, 2015 from McKnight at 1:26 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from Cross at 1:27 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from lannarone at 2:38 pm; email dated September 16, 2015 from McKnight at 4:31 :04 pm. 653277/2018 CWCAPITAL COBALT VR LTD. vs. CWCAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC Page 14 of 14 Motion No. 020
14 of 14 [* 14]