Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al.

S.D. New York

Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al.

DecidedNovember 3, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-07331

StatusUnknown

This text of Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al. (Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:

ELETSON HOLDINGS, INC. et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-cv-7331 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER LEVONA HOLDINGS et al., : Defendants. :

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Levona asks the Court to review 150 documents in camera to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies. Dkt. No. 631. The request is opposed by Reed Smith LLP. Dkt. No. 632. “A blanket rule allowing in camera review as a tool for determining the applicability of the crime-fraud exception . . . would place the policy of protecting open and legitimate disclosure between attorneys and clients at undue risk.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 (1989). “Before engaging in in camera review to determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception, ‘the judge should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person,’ that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” Jd. at 572 (quoting Caldwell v. District Court, 644 P.2d 26, 33 (Colo. 1982)); see also United States v. Costanzo, 2024 WL 2046053, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2024). As a first step, the party wishing to invoke the crime- fraud exception must make a factual showing that would “strike ‘a prudent person’ as constituting a ‘reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime

or fraud, and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.’” United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994)). Once such a showing is made, “the decision whether to engage in in camera review rests in the sound discretion of the district court.” Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572. “If the court finds that the crime- fraud exception is applicable, it ‘does not extend to all communications made in the course of the attorney-client relationship, but rather is limited to those communications and documents in furtherance of the contemplated or ongoing criminal or fraudulent conduct.’” Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D, 420, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 343 (Sth Cir.2005)). The Court has reviewed Levona’s log of 150 documents. Dkt. No. 631-1. Levona has made a sufficient showing to permit in camera review as to some but not all of the documents on that list. In particular, Reed Smith need not produce for in camera review documents 1—2, 91— 92, 97-99, 110, 114, 118-22, 125-26, 131-43, and 146-48. Reed Smith shall produce the remaining documents on Levon’s log of 150 documents to chambers for in camera review no later than November 5, 2025. The Court declines to review the log of 20 additional documents. Dkt. No. 631-2.

SO ORDERED. weit tna, é Dated: November 3, 2025 New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:

ELETSON HOLDINGS, INC. et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-cv-7331 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER LEVONA HOLDINGS et al., : Defendants. :

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Levona asks the Court to review 150 documents in camera to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies. Dkt. No. 631. The request is opposed by Reed Smith LLP. Dkt. No. 632. “A blanket rule allowing in camera review as a tool for determining the applicability of the crime-fraud exception . . . would place the policy of protecting open and legitimate disclosure between attorneys and clients at undue risk.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 (1989). “Before engaging in in camera review to determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception, ‘the judge should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person,’ that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” Jd. at 572 (quoting Caldwell v. District Court, 644 P.2d 26, 33 (Colo. 1982)); see also United States v. Costanzo, 2024 WL 2046053, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2024). As a first step, the party wishing to invoke the crime- fraud exception must make a factual showing that would “strike ‘a prudent person’ as constituting a ‘reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime

or fraud, and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.’” United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994)). Once such a showing is made, “the decision whether to engage in in camera review rests in the sound discretion of the district court.” Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572. “If the court finds that the crime- fraud exception is applicable, it ‘does not extend to all communications made in the course of the attorney-client relationship, but rather is limited to those communications and documents in furtherance of the contemplated or ongoing criminal or fraudulent conduct.’” Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D, 420, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 343 (Sth Cir.2005)). The Court has reviewed Levona’s log of 150 documents. Dkt. No. 631-1. Levona has made a sufficient showing to permit in camera review as to some but not all of the documents on that list. In particular, Reed Smith need not produce for in camera review documents 1—2, 91— 92, 97-99, 110, 114, 118-22, 125-26, 131-43, and 146-48. Reed Smith shall produce the remaining documents on Levon’s log of 150 documents to chambers for in camera review no later than November 5, 2025. The Court declines to review the log of 20 additional documents. Dkt. No. 631-2.

SO ORDERED. weit tna, é Dated: November 3, 2025 New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eletson-holdings-inc-et-al-v-levona-holdings-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack