Emma Robbins v. Dean Lewis Campbell

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EMMA ROBBINS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-2688-CEH-AAS

DEAN LEWIS CAMPBELL,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER This order follows the in camera review of the documents Defendant Dean Lewis Campbell provided to the undersigned for in camera review. On June 23, 2026, the undersigned held a hearing on Plaintiff Emma Robbins motion to compel. At the hearing the court granted the unopposed oral motion for in camera review of documents allegedly protected by spousal privilege. (Doc. 49). Mr. Campbell submitted a privilege log and drop box link containing files for the court’s review of the asserted spousal privilege. Federal common law recognizes the spousal confidential communications privilege. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Secret Dis Group LLC, No. 6:22-CV-2417-RBD-LHP, 2024 WL 621598 at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2024). 1 “There are three perquisites to assertion of the [spousal confidential communications privilege]: (1) a valid marriage existed at the time of the

communication; (2) a communication, or expression intended to convey a message was made (as opposed to an observation about a spouse’s activities directed toward third parties); and (3) the communication was made in confidence.” Id.

Upon review, the spousal privilege protects all documents submitted for in camera review. Notably, three of the documents contain portions of WhatsApp and iMessage communications between Mr. Campbell and Mark O’Reilly. The messages are pasted into larger documents containing numerous

communications protected by the spousal privilege. The bates numbers for the documents at issue are (note that the underlying communications between Mr. Campbell and Mark O’Reilly are repetitive in these documents): • DC_000921−DC_000925,

• DC_000947−DC_000954, and • DC_000986−DC_000995. At the hearing, there was an issue about the availability of communications between Mr. Campbell and Mr. O’Reilly. Other documents

within the in camera review suggest that most (if not all) of these 2 communications between Mr. Campbell and Mr. O’Reilly have been produced or otherwise are already in the possession of Ms. Robbins’s counsel. In an abundance of caution, Mr. Campbell’s counsel shall confer with Ms. Robbins’s counsel no later than July 10, 2026, to determine if Ms. Robbins’s counsel already possesses these underlying WhatsApp and iMessage communications between Mr. Campbell and Mr. O’Reilly. If Ms. Robbins’s counsel does not, Mr. Campbell must produce redacted copies of these documents so that only the underlying text communications between Mr. Campbell and Mr. O’Reilly are visible. Otherwise, these documents and the remaining documents reviewed in

camera are protected under the spousal confidential communications privilege. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 29, 2026.

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge