Trauscht v. Villa Lafayette Associates Incorporated

Opinion

WO

Ryan Trauscht, No. CV-24-01430-PHX-SMB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Villa Lafayette Associates Incorporated, et al., Defendants. Before the Court is Defendant Villa Lafayette Associates Incorporated’s (“VLA”) Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 96). The Court provides VLA with leave to amend its Privilege Log (Doc. 101-1) to comply with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(b)(5)(A)(ii), which provides: When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must . . . describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim. See also In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992) (outlining the elements of a sufficient privilege log). The Privilege Log is far too conclusory to either satisfy Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) or otherwise allow this Court to properly analyze the present Motion. In particular, the Privilege Log “fails to provide any concrete facts about the nature or subject matter of the withheld documents, which would allow an individual reviewing the log to assess the 1 appropriateness of the privilege claim.” Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 309 F.R.D. 226, 234 2\| (S.D.W. Va. 2015). The Court also notes that failing to provide a sufficient privilege log / can result in waiver. See, e.g., Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that VLA must revise and supplement its privilege log in accordance with this opinion and Rule 26(b)(5)(A) within four (4) days after the date this Order is issued. Dated this 22nd day of September, 2025. Se . ~P SO Gnted States District lodge

_2-